Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

North Atlantic Council (Meeting)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the discussions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on proposals to the Warsaw Pact governments for mutual defence reductions.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Brussels on 15th and 16th November. I will, with permission, circulate the final communiqué in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the section dealing with mutual and balanced force reductions.

Mr. Allaun: Will not the increased military commitments to N.A.T.O. jeopardise and conflict with Saturday's statement that they were continuing, despite the Czechoslovakian setback, with the plans for talks for mutually balanced troop reductions?

Mr. Stewart: The statement made by the North Atlantic Council earlier at Reykjavik about mutual force reductions still stands but, as my hon. Friend says, this is inevitably set back by what has happened in Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman study the resolutions of the North Atlantic Assembly last week in Brussels and see what widespread support

there is for action by the North Atlantic Council?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Following is the Communiqué:

Final Communiqué of the Ministerial Session of the North Atlantic Council held in Brussels on the 15th and 16th of November 1968

1. The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Brussels on 15th and 16th November. The Meeting was attended by Foreign, Defence and Finance Ministers. The Council has moved forward from mid-Dec-cember its normal year-end meeting so that Ministers might discuss at an earlier date the serious situation following the armed intervention in Czechoslovakia and the occupation of that country by forces of the Soviet and of four of its Warsaw Pact Allies.

2. Ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of the principle, which has been invoked on numerous occasions by every country, including the U.S.S.R., that all nations are independent and that consequently any intervention by one state in the affairs of another is unlawful.

They noted that this principle has been deliberately violated by the Soviet leaders with the backing of four of their Allies. World opinion has been profoundly shocked by this armed intervention carried out against the wishes of the Government and People of Czechoslovakia. All the Members of the Alliance have denounced this use of force which jeopardises peace and international order and strikes at the principles of the United Nations Charter. Like all other peoples, the People of Czechoslovakia must be free to shape their future without outside interference. Agreements concluded under the pressure of occupying forces can provide no justification for challenging this basic concept.

3. The contention of the Soviet Leadership that there exists a right of intervention in the affairs of other states deemed to be within a so-called "Socialist Commonwealth" runs counter to the basic principles of the United Nations Charter, is dangerous to European security and has inevitably aroused grave anxieties. It gives rise to fears of a further use of force in other cases.

The use of force and the stationing in Czechoslovakia of Soviet forces not hitherto deployed there have aroused grave uncertainty about the situation and about the calculations and intentions of the U.S.S.R. This uncertainty demands great vigilance on the part of the Allies.

4. Applied to Germany the policies which the U.S.S.R. derives from its doctrine of a so-called "Socialist Commonwealth" raise new obstacles to the rapprochement and ultimate unification of the two parts of Germany. More over, they would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Four Power Agreements relating to Germany as a whole.

In this situation, and bearing in mind the special responsibilities of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, the Ministers reaffirm the determination of the Alliance to


persevere in its efforts to contribute to a peaceful solution of the German question based on the free decision of the German people and on the interests of European security. Their Governments do not recognise the "G.D.R.". and they reject all claims which would tend to perpetuate the division of Germany against the will of the German people.

Referring to their communiqué issued in Reykjavik on 25th June, 1968, the Ministers confirm the support of their Governments for the declared determination of the three powers to safeguard Berlin's security and to maintain freedom of access to the City. They recall the declaration of the North Atlantic Council of December 16, 1958 on Berlin and the responsibilities which each Member State assumed with regard to the security and welfare of Berlin. They note with satisfaction the important measures taken by the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the status of Berlin for the purpose of maintaining the viability of the City. They associate themselves with the position of the three powers as regards the legitimate concern of the Federal Government for the welfare and viability of Berlin and as regards the resulting ties which exist between the two on the basis of the arrangements in force.

The Ministers associate themselves with the call made upon the Soviet Union by the three powers to respect the Quadripartite Agreements concerning Berlin and the decisions taken pursuant to these Agreements by the United States, France and the United Kingdom.

5. The new uncertainties resulting from recent Soviet actions also extend to the Mediterranean basin. This situation requires that the Allies continue by every available means their efforts to promote stability and a just and equitable peace, as well as mutual co-operation and understanding, in the area. The expansion of Soviet activity in the Mediterranean, including the increased presence of Soviet naval units, requires vigilance to safeguard Allied security.

6. The Members of the Alliance urge the Soviet Union, in the interests of world peace, to refrain from using force and interfering in the affairs of other states.

Determined to safeguard the freedom and independence of their countries, they could not remain indifferent to any development which endangers their security.

Clearly any Soviet intervention directly or indirectly affecting the situation in Europe or in the Mediterranean would create an international crisis with grave consequences.

7. So long as the Soviet Leaders adhere to a policy of force, these new uncertainties will remain. The Allies are convinced that their political solidarity remains indispensable to discourage aggression and other forms of oppression. Above all, they stand wholly determined to meet their common responsibilities and. in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty, to defend the Members of the Alliance against any armed attack.

8. The Allies participating in NATO's integrated defence programme have, therefore, been obliged to re-assess the state of their

defences. They consider that the situation arising from recent events calls for a collective response. The quality, effectiveness, and deployment of NATO's forces will be improved in terms of both manpower and equipment in order to provide a better capability for defence as far forward as possible. The quality of reserve forces will also be improved and their ability to mobilise rapidly will be increased. Renewed attention will be directed to the provision of reinforcements for the flanks and the strengthening of local forces there. The conventional capability of NATO's tactical air forces will be increased. Certain additional national units will be committed to the major NATO commanders. Specific measures have been approved within these categories of action for improving the conventional capability of NATO's forces. Ministers agreed that the co-ordinated implementation of these measures and the provision of additional budgetary resources to the extent necessary to support them would form part of the NATO force plan for 1969–73 which will be submitted in January 1969. They also acknowledged that the solidarity of the Alliance can be strengthened by co-operation between Members to alleviate burdens arising from balance of payments deficits resulting specifically from military expenditures for the collective defence.

9. A year ago Ministers affirmed in the report on the future tasks of the Alliance that, while maintaining adequate military strength and political solidarity to deter any aggressor, the Alliance should work to promote a policy of detente. The Soviet intervention in Czecho-slovakia has seriously set back hopes of settling the outstanding problems which still divide the European continent and Germany and of establishing peace and security in Europe, and threatens certain of the results already achieved in the field of detente. Indeed, in view of the action of the five members of the Warsaw Pact, the scope and level of the five Allied contacts with them have had to be reduced.

10. More specificially, prospects for mutual balanced force reductions have suffered a severe setback. Nevertheless, the Allies in close consultation are continuing their studies and preparations for a time when the atmosphere for fruitful discussions is more favourable.

11. In any event, consistent with Western values the political goal remains that of secure, peaceful and mutually beneficial relations between East and West, the Allies are determined to pursue this goal, bearing in mind that the pursuit of detente must not be allowed to split the Alliance. The search for peace requires progress consistent with Western security, in the vital fields of disarmament and arms control and continuing efforts to resolve the fundamental issues which divide East and West.

12. The North Atlantic Alliance will continue to stand as the indispensable guarantor of security and the essential foundation for the pursuit of European reconciliation. By its constitution the Alliance is of indefinite duration. Recent events have further demonstrated that


its continued existence is more than ever necessary. The Foreign Minister of France recalled that, for its part, unless events in the years to come were to bring about a radical change in East-West relations, the French Government considers that the Alliance must continue as long as it appears to be necessary.

13. The next Ministerial Meeting of the Council will be held in Washington on 10th and 11th April, 1969.

14. The Defence Planning Committee which met in Ministerial Session on 14th November will hold its next Ministerial Meeting in Brussels on 16th January, 1969.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has put forward since the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's present policy towards the North Atlantic Treaty and its continuance after its current expiry date.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what adjustments are being made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation arising from the action taken by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against Czechoslovakia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has now had within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with a view to making more effective its defensive objectives; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: The North Atlantic Council has just met to consider the situation resulting from the armed Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. Its conclusions are set out in the official communiqué which is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS regards our own contribution, I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration gave on 14lh November to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

Mr. Ridsdale: Are the meagre defence increases that the Government have

announced enough to help us fulfil our new commitments to N.A.T.O.? What are the implications of our new commitments to N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Stewart: Our commitments to N.A.T.O. remain what they have always been. The hon. Gentleman calls the commitments meagre, but this is not the view of our Allies.

Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that events in Czechoslovakia have given a new lease of life to N.A.T.O., and does he feel, at the same time, that the Labour Party's doctrine of disengagement lacks something in credibility now that we have seen how rapidly the Soviets can fill a vacuum in Western Europe?

Mr. Stewart: As to giving N.A.T.O. a new lease of life, the hon. Gentleman will see in the communiqué of the allies that it is clear that they regard the Alliance as more necessary than ever. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it is of great importance for both East and West to get force reductions and disengagements if they can, but this has to be a balanced and mutual process.

Mr. Shinwell: When warning Russia about its past activities and possible future intentions, did my right hon. Friend weigh up N.A.T.O. 's capabilities or was it just merely talk? Also, does he not realise that it is impossible for the European countries, N.A.T.O. and the rest, to face up to Russia without full military support from the United States?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. The firm holding together of the European and North American members of the Alliance is a first principle of its success. This was very well understood by all the Ministers at the recent meeting.

Mr. Longden: Would not the best thing for N.A.T.O. be if the European members of it could unite more than they are doing, and have Her Majesty's Government made any concrete proposals for collaborating with the Six in such matters as defence and arms procurement and other matters which are outside the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. This is being pursued—by my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Defence at the N.A.T.O. meeting recently, and in connection with the Harmel proposals.

Mr. Spriggs: Would my right hon. Friend care to use his authority at the United Nations to condemn all forms of armed intervention wherever it may be and whoever is responsible?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. This has always been our position.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The phrase "new commitments" has been used in one or two questions. While it is proper to give warning to the Soviet Union, is it not a fact that the only absolute commitment of the N.A.T.O. Alliance is to those who are members of and partners in the Alliance?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. If I may at the same time refer to a part of the question by my right hon. Friend with which I did not deal at the time, it is true that the clear, unmistakable commitment of the members of N.A.T.O. is to defend each other. In the light of what has happened in Czechoslovakia, they are obliged to consider whether, and to what extent, further action of that kind might affect the security of N.A.T.O. members themselves. When we did this—I say this in reply to my right hon. Friend—we did it together with the military advisers of N.A.T.O. and aware of what is involved.

Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend not recognise that those of us who are opposed to military intervention, whether by the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia or the United States in Vietnam, feel that some other form of organisation and security ought to be developed? Was there any discussion of a European security pact which would guarantee nations large and small throughout the whole of the continent of Europe?

Mr. Stewart: For some time I have tried to work towards a European security system, but I believe that a necessary prerequisite of that is a general easing of tensions between the countries of East and West Europe. That was what we were working for, and working for with some success. Unfortunately, that work is now set back by what has happened in Czechoslovakia. Therefore, at present we have to lay rather more emphasis on the defence and deterrent side of N.A.T.O.

than on the conciliatory function, but I hope that in time it will be possible to resume the other.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the very great importance of what my right hon. Friend said in his last answer but one, will he arrange for the House to have an early debate on the N.A.T.O. declaration of last week?

Mr. Stewart: That is not for me.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the growing feeling in Western Europe that there should be a Western European Union task force in the Eastern Mediterranean under N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will see that the Mediterranean is referred to in the communiqué.

China (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are now detained without trial in Communist China; how long each of them has been detained; and how many have recently been visited by his officers.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are at present detained or believed to be detained in China; and in how many of these cases consular access has been refused.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in securing the release of British subjects detained by the Chinese.

Mr. M. Stewart: The position remains as stated in the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 14th October. All these persons except one, Mr. George Watt, have been detained without trial. Our Mission in Peking has not been granted consular access to any of them recently. As I told the House during the debate on the Address, in our repeated representations to the Chinese we have made no secret of our view of their


deplorable behaviour in this matter. We shall continue to press urgently for information and for consular access to those detained.—[Vol. 770, c. 16–17.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not both this detention and the denial of consular access a complete denial of the normal standards accepted between civilised countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend simply to go on protesting, or is it his intention to indicate to the Chinese that if they will behave like barbarians in their own country they cannot expect civilised privileges here?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes", but if in the second half he is suggesting that some kind of reprisal I can only say that I do not believe that this would serve the purpose that we both have in mind.

Mr. Onslow: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to telling the Chinese that, if they persist in behaving in his barbarous manner, they cannot expect us to go on supporting Peking's application to join the United Nations?

Mr. Stewart: I have considered a great many courses of action, including this one. I do not believe that this would help, because I think that the continued exclusion of the Peking Government from the United Nations is one factor in the whole situation.

Mr. McMaster: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in spite of many protests of this nature over the past 12 months, the situation has been getting worse? Will he not now consider what retaliation the British Government must take to stop the Chinese from acting in this way? What action is he taking to bring to the attention of other British firms the danger to their employees, such as that experienced by Vickers Zimmer, in carrying out contracts which are to the benefit of the Chinese?

Mr. Stewart: With regard to the second half of the supplementary question, I told the House some time ago that we had drawn the attention of business firms to the risks involved by people visiting China. On the first part, though I do not wish in any way to minimise the seriousness of the situation, it is not correct to say that it is getting worse.

Since the summer three British subjects have been released. Our Chargé d'Affaires, as the House knows, Sir Donald Hopson, has been able to return, and the conditions of our Mission have improved. I believe this justifies our trying to handle the matter in the way we are.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the last reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release from Peking of Mr. Anthony Grey.

Mr. M. Stewart: We have made repeated representations to the Chinese deploring their unjustified detention of Mr. Grey and will continue to press strongly for his release.
Mr. Grey was detained by the Chinese authorities following the arrest and conviction of a number of journalists in Hong Kong implicated in the violent events which took place there in 1967. Of those journalists mentioned in Chinese publicity at the time of Mr. Grey's detention, the last, Hsueh P'ing, was released on 16th November. In the circumstances we must hope for the speedy release of Mr. Grey.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not true that this unfortunate gentleman has been in prison in one room under armed guard for well over a year without charge and has not seen a member of our Mission since April? Is it not also true that actions speak louder than words? When is the right hon. Gentleman going to rescind the visas of the four journalists of the New China News Agency now in London?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the circumstances of Mr. Grey's detention. As to the second part of his supplementary question—these and other courses of action were referred to in supplementary questions earlier. I give to him now the answer I gave then. I do not believe that these courses of action would make the release of Mr. Grey or the other detainees more likely.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend keep up his efforts to find out the whereabouts of my constituents, the Gordon family, who have disappeared without trace in China? Will he seek the assistance of, perhaps, the International Red Cross to act as mediators?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. We have made endavours to find out about Mr. Gordon and his family and will see if there is anything further that can be done.

Suez Canal

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will expect the British ships detained in the Bitter Lakes by the Egyptians to be released; and what action he is taking to expedite this.

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any further progress has been achieved in Her Majesty's Government's attempts to secure the release the British ships trapped in the Suez Canal.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiative he proposes to secure the release of British ships presently detained in the Suez Canal.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): My right hon. Friend discussed the subject with the United Arab Republic Foreign Minister when they met in London and in New York, and my right hon. and noble Friend, the United Kingdom permanent representative at the United Nations, has been in touch with Dr. Jarring. The subject was also discussed with Mr. Allon, the Israel Deputy Prime Minister, during his recent visit to London. The substance of these consultations is of course confidential, but we are convinced that the way forward is through such patient negotiation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the former Foreign Secretary told the House nine months ago that he expected the early release of these ships? Is the right hon. Gentleman simply prepared to go on with these interminable conversations while British ships

are piratically detained for already 17 months?

Mr. Roberts: It is true that in January or February of this year we had fairly high hopes that the initiative we then took would result in the release of these ships. Unfortunately, incidents occurred which made this impossible. Since then we have been very active in pressing forward on all fronts to secure some solution to this problem which could, we think, be isolated from the general Middle East problem.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is it not untrue to suggest that these ships are detained by the Egyptians? Is it not the fact that last January, when unarmed survey ships commenced to examine the technical feasibility of exit through the north into the Mediterranean, they were fired on by the Israelis, one death resulted, and surveying came to an end? What representations is my right hon. Friend making to Israel?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that it will help if we try to apportion blame when, clearly, responsibility does not lie on one side or the other. We ought to concentrate on trying to reach a solution on the lines of that which was proposed in January and which came very nearly to fruition.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Have the Government any contingency plans for steps to be taken in the event of hostilities breaking out in this area, as seems more than likely?

Mr. Roberts: That is such a wide-ranging and hypothetical question that I could not answer it at this point.

Sir B. Janner: As Israel is prepared to let the ships out at the south end, and there is every possibility of that being done, and as the U.A.R. has refused point-blank to acknowledge Israel's right to use the Canal, will my right hon. Friend, in the circumstances, press that the ships be allowed to come out through the southern part of the Canal?

Mr. Roberts: This and other possible technical solutions to the problem have been discussed and are being discussed. It would be helpful if we left the ship-owners' working committee—which was set up in January and which is now engaged


in talks; in Cairo on these technical matters—to proceed without unduly overlaying the question with political comment.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the continued closure of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the continuing closure of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I believe that the best hope of reopening the Canal to international shipping lies in a general settlement in the Middle East. We are actively supporting Dr. Jarring's efforts to reach such a settlement on the basis of the principles in the Security Council's resolution of 22nd November, 1967, which included freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area.

Mr. Marten: Whilst I do not wish to embarrass the shipowners' conference which is going on in Cairo at present, I would point out that this has been going on for a very long time. Does the Minister recall a suggestion I made in a recent foreign affairs debate that the Canal should be unblocked at the south end and the ships let out, and then if necessary blocked up again? What has held up that suggestion?

Mr. Roberts: I have noted the suggestion. A number of suggestions have been made and are being made about the technical ways—and, indeed, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, a political way—of solving the problem. It does not seem to me that, apart from the question of the trapped ships, to separate the wider question of the Canal from the whole problem of the Middle East looks promising.

Mr. Jackson: Bearing in mind the vital importance of this international shipping highway, will my right hon. Friend say if any consideration is being given to a United Nations survey of the obstacles and a clearance by the United Nations, as was done in 1956?

Mr. Roberts: The United Nations could not undertake a survey or removal

of the blockage without authorisation from the Security Council. It is a matter for very careful consideration whether such a proposal in the Security Council about the Canal might not set afoot a wider discussion affecting the whole of the Middle East issue, which might not prove helpful to Dr. Jarring in his present negotiations.

Mr. Hastings: But for the presence of Israel, is it not a fact that the Russians now virtually control the Canal?

Mr. Roberts: No, Sir. I do not subscribe to that view. It is inherently unlikely that the Russians would wish to intrude further into the Canal issue.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain cases deterioration has become critical to the point of write-off?

Mr. Roberts: That is a serious possibility, if not a probability. They are very expensive and valuable cargoes, and the longer this goes on deterioration sets in. We are aware of this, and it lends point to our efforts.

United Arab Republic

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums he has agreed to lend Egypt, and on what terms; to what extent it is a condition precedent of such loans that British ships incarcerated in the Suez Canal are freed, and when; and whether he will make a statement on Anglo-Egyptian relations.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: None, since the facility extended last spring was repaid. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not apply. Since the resumption of diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic last December, our relations have been good, and I have every confidence that they will continue to be so.

Sir G. Nabarro: Now that the Minister is evidently refusing loans to Egypt, will he assure the House that he will not resume negotiations for these loans so long as Egypt builds up her military bases for use by the Soviets against the Western allies in the Mediterranean?

Mr. Roberts: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that no application for a


loan has been made or is under consideration. The answer to the second part is that any such application, if it were made, would have to be considered in all contexts, including indebtedness and every other question which affects such an application.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what economic aid or other assistance has been given to the Government of the United Arab Republic; and what progress has been made in implementing the desequestration of the property of British nationals and the payment of compensation for British property that has been nationalised.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: No capital aid has been given. Technical assistance consists mainly of paying the costs of four United Arab Republic trainees in Britain. The release of sequestrated property under the 1959 Anglo-Egyptian agreement is proceeding steadily and we hope that property will soon begin to be released under the 1967 Exchange of Notes. Owners' estimates of nationalised property are with the United Arab Republic authorities.

Mr. Wall: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to reach agreement on the nationalised property? Can he say specifically whether British nationals are now able to repatriate their own personal property under the terms of the 1967 White Paper?

Mr. Roberts: I will take note of the second question and endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman a reply.
The answer to his first question is that the next step will be to examine the comments of the United Arab Republic authorities on the lists of British property already submitted to them.

Falkland Islands

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assurances he has given to the Falkland Islands that the British Falkland Islands will not be handed over to Argentina or any other country against the wishes of the Falkland islanders, and will remain a British Crown Colony for so long as the majority of Falkland islanders so desire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): As has been made clear in the House on numerous occasions, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to transfer sovereignty over these islands against the wishes of the islanders.—[Vol. 761, c. 1458–67; Vol. 762, c. 3–5, Vol. 770, c. 103.]

Sir G. Nabarro: In the light of that unequivocal assurance from the hon. Gentleman, what is the purpose of dispatching a Minister of the Crown to the Falkland Islands anyway? What will he do when he gets there?

Mr. Whitlock: These unequivocal assurances have been given repeatedly, and the dispatch of the Minister to the Falkland Islands is in accordance with a promise made to the House by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs some months ago.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does not much of the confusion arise because Her Majesty's Government will insist on keeping the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands on the agenda of talks with the Argentine? Will they not take it off the agenda? It seems utterly pointless to keep it on.

Mr. Whitlock: We have always made clear that we have no doubts in our minds about British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but reiteration of that has not removed Argentinian feeling on the matter. The Minister who is about to go to the Falkland Islands will be there for talks with the Falkland Islanders about Her Majesty's Government's attitude.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will the Government take this subject off the agenda of their discussions with the Argentine? Then the whole trouble would disappear.

Mr. Whitlock: The talks with the Argentine Government are to reach a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and the Argentine. That is our aim.

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the curriculum of the


Minister of State at the Foreign Office during his visit to the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Whitlock: As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. and noble Friend will meet members of the Islands Executive and Legislative Councils formally and informally. He will also meet as many representatives as possible of local organisations and of the community as a whole.

Mr. Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to make it quite clear while he is there that at no time in future will dilution, or transfer, of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands be considered?

Mr. Whitlock: It has always been made clear in the House, and made clear repeatedly, that any transfer of sovereignty would take place only in circumstances in which the islanders were in agreement.

Mr. Braine: Bearing in mind that hitherto the Governor's Executive Council has been vowed to secrecy about the progress of negotiations with the Argentine about sovereignty, will the noble Lord be empowered to take the whole of the islands into Her Majesty's Government's confidence and to repeat to all representative organisations the assurance given this afternoon?

Mr. Whitlock: I am sure that what my noble Friend will tell the islanders will be the subject of consultation with the Governor of the islands and the Executive Council.

Following are the details:

Lord Chalfont's Visit to the Falkland Islands: Provisional Programme

Saturday 23rd November

Arrive by H.M.S. "Endurance" at a West Falkland anchorage and met by Governor. Sir Cosmo Haskard, K.C.M.G., M.B.E. Tour of several farms; re-embark H.M.S. "Endurance" for overnight passage to Stanley.

Sunday 24th November

Arrive Stanley; stay at Government House. Informal meetings with members of Executive Council; attend service at Anglican Cathedral.

Monday 25th November

Morning. Informal talks with members of Legislative Council and formal meeting of Executive Council. Later, formal joint meeting with Executive and Legislative Council members.

Afternoon. Meetings with individuals representative of the community and local organisations.

2. Dinner party at Government House attended by members of Councils and their wives.

Tuesday 26th November

Weather permitting, tour East Falkland farms by air.

Wednesday 27th November

Visits to private houses, school, hospital; see something of government and commercial activities.

Thursday 28th November

Departure by H.M.S. "Endurance".

Western European Union and Council of Europe (Delegations)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs why it is not the practice to publish figures for attendance of all- party Parliamentary delegations to inter national conferences such as Western European Union and the Council of Europe; and whether he will change this practice and make the information avail able to Members of Parliament on request.

Mr. Whitlock: The procedures of both the Western European Union and Council of Europe Assemblies provide for representation by either delegates or their alternates. There is, therefore, no special significance in the attendance of individual delegates, and I see no reason to change the present position.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs what were the actual rates of travelling, hotel and subsistence allowances paid at the approved rates claimed for and paid to delegates attending the Western European Union Assembly on Tuesday, 15th October. 1968; and if he will give an assurance that no claims were made or paid to delegates who were not in attendance.

Mr. Whitlock: Delegates travelled either tourist class by air or first-class by sea and rail. Hotel expenses were at the rate of £6 15s. 0d. for each night in Paris, with subsistence of £4 2s. 8d. for each 24 hours of their stay.
As my hon. Friend knows, expenses on this basis are paid to delegates and substitutes attending the Assembly as a


whole and not according to attendance or non-attendance at specific debates.—[Vol. 770, c. 353–54.]

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was widely reported in the Press that, on the occasion of an important vote connected with the Common Market, it was alleged that none of the delegates were present and no quorum could be formed to take the vote, so that it had to be postponed to another day? If one cannot find the information about who should or should not be there—the Department will not give it and neither will the Library—how can one check whether they were there or not to draw their fees?

Mr. Whitlock: As has been often said in the House, we are not responsible for Press reports. My hon. Friend has already been told once in the House that on the occasion to which he refers the British delegation had full representation.

Mr. Peel: The Minister has referred to the rates payable to our delegates. Will he bear in mind that more and more, particularly since devaluation, the rates compare unfavourably with those paid to all other delegations to both the Council of Europe and W.E.U., and will he look into it again?

Mr. Whitlock: That is not my impression. The subsistence allowances paid to members of the British delegation are reasonable, and, while being no higher than many others, they are at an average level compared with those paid to delegations from other countries.

Mr. Shinwell: But is it not true that all delegates from the House sent to this Assembly have been sent because they are specially selected as being in favour of British entry into the Common Market? Is not that what it is all about? Is not that the significance if it? Are we now to understand that we are converting these amateur pro-Common marketeers into professionals?
Why not answer the question? Do not run away. What is my hon. Friend afraid of?

European Co-operation

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about

the Harmel proposals for closer European co-operation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take on the Belgian initiatives to link Great Britain closer to the countries of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he plans to take to associate Great Britain more closely with the countries of the European Economic Community.

Mr. M. Stewart: Full membership of the Communities remains our aim. Meanwhile, we must make progress towards closer European unity in other ways. M. Harmel's proposals for closer co-operation, particularly in foreign policy and defence, provide for this, and we are considering them in consultation with other European Governments.

Mr. Marten: Did the Foreign Secretary suggest that Britain and the Five should set up a study group to consider the Harmel proposals, thereby leaving France out of it? If so, is not that a rather divisive procedure from the point of view of European unity?

Mr. Stewart: No. Sir; we have proposed further study of those proposals, but at the meeting which I had with representatives of the Five countries recently the French also were invited to be present. We have no wish to proceed without them, but we cannot take the view that, if they are not prepared to co-operate, we should do nothing.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Could not the proposals be discussed at the proposed conference of Heads of Government which the right hon. Gentlemen supported at The Hague? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to bring the conference about?

Mr. Stewart: I would not at present answer the second part of that question. If such a conference were held, these proposals, and, no doubt, other matters, could be discussed.

Mr. Cronin: In view of France's obvious economic difficulties and the difficulties that the Community's agricultural


policy is in, and also the fact that it is clearly desirable that there should be much closer co-operation between the countries of Western Europe and ourselves, is not this a most favourable time to adopt a new initiative and press on with negotiations to enter the Community?

Mr. Stewart: As I explained, we are engaged in active work on M. Harmel's proposals, with French co-operation if it is available, but are prepared to go on if it is not.

Mr. Mayhew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech he made at The Hague. Do I understand from his reply that no invitations have gone out for the Foreign Ministers to meet in order to push forward this idea?

Mr. Stewart: Not so far, but the Foreign Ministers met quite recently at the same time as the N.A.T.O. Ministerial meeting.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is not the problem here to get outside the veto and the European treaties, and that if we are seeking co-operation with the Five that is not subject to the veto this will have to be in the fields of defence and political consultations? Does the Foreign Secretary agree, and will he say what he is doing about it?

Mr. Stewart: That is what I said in my first answer.

Middle East

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the Middle East.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the mission of Dr. Gunnar Jarring to the Middle East; and when it is estimated that Dr. Jarring will formally report to the Security Council.

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been achieved in implementing the resolution on the Middle East passed by the Security Council last November.

Mr. M. Stewart: Since I spoke on 31st October in the debate on the Address, the Foreign Ministers of Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic have returned to their capitals from New York. Each has expressed his readiness to continue discussions with Dr. Jarring, and it is our hope and expectation that the exchanges begun in New York will be resumed either there or elsewhere.
Meanwhile Her Majesty's Government continue to give Dr. Jarring their full support. It is for him to decide when to submit his formal report.

Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government will have widespread support in their continued attempts to bring home to all the parties in this tragic situation their responsibilities for ensuring the success of the resolution of November last year?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It has been our endeavour ever since we sponsored the resolution to draw the attention of all parties to actions they can take which would help Dr. Jarring in his work.

Mr. Hooley: I support all the efforts Dr. Jarring is making, but is it not a fact that the military situation is steadily deteriorating day by day and that we cannot allow it to drift on month after month without further diplomatic initiatives in the Security Council or elsewhere?

Mr. Stewart: I realise that Dr. Jarring has not been able to make more than very disappointing progress so far. My noble Friend, Lord Caradon, is in close touch with him and his colleagues, the representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council, as to ways in which Dr. Jarring might be assisted in his mission.

Mr. Griffiths: Have Jordan, the U.A.R. and Israel signified their acceptance in principle of the Security Council resolution of last November?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. There is a general acceptance in principle. The problem now is what actions are needed in order to see that the whole of the resolution is put into effect.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend keep a close watch on the deteriorating situation because of the increasing build-up of equipment on the Arab side


coming from Russia? Some reassurance on this point for Israel's future is also relevant.

Mr. Stewart: This is a consideration that is not only very much in our minds but in the minds of everyone concerned with the problem. I repeat what I said in the debate on the Address, that it is not possible for those not immediately concerned to solve the matter without effective help from the parties that are immediately concerned in the dispute.

China (United Nations Representation)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy towards the representation of China at the United Nations.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: It has been stated on many occasions in this House and in the United Nations General Assembly that Her Majesty's Government support the immediate seating of the Chinese People's Republic in the United Nations. Although Chinese treatment of British subjects in the past year has been disgraceful, we do not intend to allow this to deflect us from maintaining a policy which we believe to be right.

Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he explain why, in view of this, the Government continue to regard the admission of China to the United Nations as, in United Nations terminology, an important question requiring a two-thirds majority?

Mr. Roberts: I do not see how it can be denied that this is a question of importance under Article 18(2) of the Charter. Opinion in the United Nations is deeply divided on this, as the reports of the voting in at least the past two years clearly show. It is for this reason that, while we support the seating of the C.P.R. in the United Nations, we adhere to our decision also to regard it as an important question.

Sir C. Osborne: Are not the Government aware that even if Peking were invited to take a seat at the United Nations it would refuse so to do while Formosa has a seat there? Is not it false to keep raising the hope that a

seat for Peking in the United Nations would ease the situation in the Far East?

Mr. Roberts: One cannot assume what the hon. Gentleman has said. We must wait and see.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposal he has put forward since the Soviet occupation of Czecho-slovakia to strengthen the treaty arrangements in the Persian Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: No such strengthening is required. The deplorable invasion of Czechoslovakia is a grave setback to détente in international affairs but has no immediate bearing on the factors which led to Her Majesty's Government's decision to withdraw our military presence and terminate the existing treaty relationships by the end of 1971.

Mr. Ridsdale: Are we not creating a vacuum in the Persian Gulf? What discussions are the Government having with our allies, including the United States and our Continental allies, with regard to strengthening our position east of Suez and helping us to prevent a vacuum being created there?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree that a vacuum will be created. We have until the end of 1971 to strengthen the States in the area and help them, if they require our help, to create a strong and viable union. Their safety, stability and peace are best maintained not by our military presence there indefinitely, but by their own independence resting on the good will of their neighbours, some of which are very powerful.

Vietnam

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the further steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to try to secure a cease-fire in Vietnam.

Mr. M. Stewart: Those directly concerned in the war are seeking ways to enable the wider talks to be started in Paris, which we all hope could lead to a cease-fire and a political settlement.


I do not believe Her Majesty's Government have an immediate rôle to play in these negotiations: but all the parties to them know that we are ready to help whenever this would be useful.

Mr. Winnick: Since both the United States and the Communists, the National Liberation Front and the North Vietnamese, realise that there can be no military solution to the war, is there now a chance that the South Vietnamese Administration will attend the Paris talks so that the conference can proceed and find a solution to South Vietnam's future?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 7th November, expressed the very clear view that the South Vietnamese Government should attend the Paris talks, and I repeat that.

Passports

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will introduce legislation reforming the law governing the granting of British passports.

Mr. Whitlock: In the United Kingdom the grant of passports is a Prerogative function. If the reform which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the introduction of safeguards against the arbitrary refusal of passports, a step has already been taken in this direction by the setting up of the Cairns Committee to review passport refusals connected with the illegal declaration of independence in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not intolerable that a law that was originally designed in the thirteenth century to keep the clergy from visiting Rome should today be used to imprison citizens in this island? Surely the very least that the Foreign Secretary and his helpers can do is to set up an independent tribunal to which appeal can be made or to allow a form of hearing so that the rules of natural justice can be observed in the matter?

Mr. Whitlock: The hon. Gentleman may find the system intolerable, but it has been the position of successive Governments that this must remain a Prerogative function, and on the whole there has been little complaint about it.

Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend aware that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose passports happen to have been issued elsewhere than in London are sometimes treated differently for visa purposes in many countries from those whose passports were issued in London? Would he not agree that this is an irrelevancy and try to seek some agreement?

Mr. Whitlock: We are looking into the matter.

Nigeria

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the Nigerian civil war; and what action he is taking to end it.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding his efforts to promote a settlement in Nigeria.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the efforts made by Her Maejsty's Government to secure an end to the war in Biafra.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to help in bringing to an end the Nigerian civil war; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: Since my statement of 22nd October, I have discussed the position with Chief Enahoro, General Gowon's special representative, who has also seen my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Chief Enahoro confirmed to me his Government's willingness to begin negotiations at any time provided that the principle of an undivided Nigeria was accepted. We continue to support the efforts of the Organisation for African Unity Committee on Nigeria in seeking to bring the two sides together. By contributing to the team of international observers we are also trying to re-assure the Ibo people about the intentions of the Federal Government towards them and thereby to make a solution easier.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not possible for at least some of the world Powers, including Britain, to say to both sides, "You must stop this bloody civil war and accept in a limited area and for a limited time an international force"?

Mr. Stewart: We have on two occasions promoted talks with a view to a settlement. It has not been through lack of interest on our part that they have not been successful. I believe that the Powers in the best position to do this are those in the Organisation of African Unity.

Mr. Lane: What recent talks have Her Majesty's Government had with the French Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman in any case consider taking a fresh initiative for urgent discussions with the French and Russian Governments in the hope that at least some voluntary limitation of arms supply can be secured as soon as possible?

Mr. Stewart: This matter was discussed not long ago at a meeting of Western European Union. The question of getting a joint agreement on the supply of arms presents very great difficulties indeed.

Mr. Allaun: Since the policy of subduing Biafra quickly has manifestly failed, and since Biafra may grow into another Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend immediately ask the three other supplying nations to stop arms to both sides and to enforce a cease-fire?

Mr. Stewart: Unfortunately, this is not only a question of Governmental supplies of arms but also of arms from some very miscellaneous sources. Inter-Governmental agreements on this would not, I am afraid, result in a general stoppage of the supply of arms.

Mr. James Johnson: With the efforts of Chief Enaharo, is it not a fact that the war could have been nearer an honourable settlement on both sides but for the mischievous intervention from French sources in Gabon and the Ivory Coast? Will my right hon. Friend squash for all time the mischievous claim "genocide" in this case and place in the Library the statement by international observers?

Mr. Allaun: Ten thousand a day dying.

Mr. Stewart: I believe that the statement by the international observers is

already to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will make sure that it is indeed available to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) is quite right. The story about genocide has been proved beyond doubt to be completely false.

Mr. Braine: Is the Secretary of State aware that the questions which have just been asked reflect the deep feeling in this country and the Commonwealth about the protracted nature of the war? Is he further aware that the war and the suffering are being protracted by the supply of arms which is said to be coming from France? Whatever the difficulties, will he not now exercise some initiative and endeavour to get international agreement on the question of arms supplies?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that there is not a single right hon. or hon. Member who does not share the concern about the prolongation of the war and the suffering it involves. If I could see that an approach of the kind suggested would be useful, I would make it. If I am cautious, it is because I do not wish to raise hopes which might be disappointed.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Why will the Government not plainly state that they will not send any more arms to the Federal Government? Does my right hon. Friend recognise the great fear among Nigerians and the horror of our people when they read in their newspapers not long ago that we were being asked for more arms by the Federal Government?

Mr. Stewart: The reason why Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to refuse to supply the Nigerian Government with arms has been stated on several occasions in the House. I will state it briefly again. We believe that this rebellion was a disastrous and tragic error and that it would not have been right for us to cut off arms to a Commonwealth country whose traditional supplier we were because it was faced with a rebellion. To have done so would have amounted to giving support to rebellion and thereby to all the suffering for which it is responsible.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the Federal Government of Nigeria


to authorise increased shipments of arms to Nigeria; and what reply he has given.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Federal Government continue to seek part of their requirements for military supplies in this country, and it remains our policy to approve the export of carefully controlled quantities of weapons of the kind traditionally supplied to the Nigerian Armed Forces. It is not in the public interest for details of such requests to be disclosed.

Mr. Barnes: Is my hon. Friend saying that if the Federal Government of Nigeria requested supplies of offensive weapons of a more sophisticated nature than those previously supplied, we would not agree to supply them?

Mr. Stewart: As I have said, our policy is to continue the export of carefully controlled quantities of weapons of the kind traditionally supplied.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that his reply means nothing at all, that he could go on supplying arms and possibly try to match the Russians, that the formula which he has produced is a formula which permits unlimited supplies? Has not the time come for the Government to re-examine the whole matter morally, politically and from the point of view of power politics? When they have made a complete nonsense of so much of their policy, is it not time to think again?

Mr. Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the terms of my reply, he will see that the supply is very carefully limited. The reasons for the policy-have been given to the House on more than one occasion, and I see no reason to depart from them.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a European initiated arms race in this part of West Africa and that this will inevitably result in military escalation? Does he not agree that in the new circumstances our position is becoming increasingly untenable? Will he consider the whole subject of arms supplies to this part of West Africa, preferably in consultation with those other European countries engaged in this traffic?

Mr. Stewart: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer to the hon. Member

for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). Her Majesty's Government's part in this matter has not been confined to the traditional supply of arms to the Nigerian Government. We have been instrumental in carrying out a great deal of relief work, in interesting the United Nations in this matter, and in promoting negotiations between the sides, negotiations which have failed for reasons unhappily beyond our control.

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting that Britain has played a great part in supplies of relief, particularly to those whom British bullets have driven into the bush, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government are satisfied that they have derived all the political advantage and have been able to exert all the undoubted influence that they have always claimed the shipment of arms has made possible?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether that is how the right hon. Gentleman regards it, but that is not how I regard it. I believe that this rebellion was fraught with dangers not only for Nigeria, but for the future of Africa as a whole. It was that consideratoin rather than those things mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman that underlay our policy.

Departmental Staff (Rhodesia)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff of the Rhodesian Political Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have personal experience of Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made since the amalgamation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices in the structure and personnel of departments concerned with Rhodesia; and what are the qualifications, and experience of Rhodesia, of the present staff of those departments.

Mr. M. Stewart: Both the Rhodesia Political and Rhodesia Economic departments of the former Commonwealth Office have been incorporated in the new Foreign and Commonwealth Office with only two minor changes in staffing. Among the members of these departments and the superintending Undersecretaries there are five people who


have had personal experience of Rhodesia, and two other senior staff who have worked on Rhodesian affairs for several years.

Mr. Hastings: In the circumstances, is this adequate? Whatever the Minister without Portfolio may have to say later, does not the Secretary of State think that, if he chose more people with a more profound experience of Rhodesia, particularly of the tribal trust areas, some of the current misunderstandings might be eased? What encouragement is he giving to the members of the residual Mission in Salisbury to travel and learn?

Mr. Stewart: The latter part of that supplementary question might be better asked of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. On the first part, the answer is "No'. I have every confidence in those working in my Rhodesia political and economic departments. A substantial proportion of them have either personal experience or detailed knowledge of Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May we take it that Government policy is now being decided as a result of these changes with more regard for Britain's world position, which demands an early settlement with Rhodesia, and less regard for an obsolete colonialism?

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is discarding an obsolete colonialism, but I do not accept the implications of his question.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that this Department, including the High Commission, misled the Government in every single assessment it made and that that has been a great deal of the cause of the trouble? When this happens, is there not a case for some change of personalities?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is incorrect in the first question, so that the second does not arise.

B.E. A. Aircraft (Accident)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken with other countries to identify and charge the murderer who caused the loss of 66 lives in the British European Airways aircraft lost through a bomb

explosion off the Turkish coast on 12th October, 1967.

Mr. Whitlock: Members of the Metropolitan Police visited Athens and Nicosia last spring in connection with the accident and the Greek and Cyprus Governments were informed of the visit.

Mr. Campbell: As the reason for the accident has recently been made clear, was this not a more villainous crime than the great train robbery, and should not every effort be made internationally to bring the culprits to justice and so deter others from committing this diabolical form of mass murder?

Mr. Whitlock: No doubt all concerned here and elsewhere are alerted to obtain the necessary evidence, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General informed the House on 21st October, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that at present no evidence is available to justify criminal proceedings against any individual.

Sir A. V. Harvey: What steps have been taken to safeguard British aircraft in transit through Greece, or other countries, in future?

Mr. Whitlock: Questions of that character are best directed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Diplomatic Service (Duncan Committee)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will refer to the Duncan Committee the proposal that the same conditions of pension and retirement apply to the Diplomatic Service as to the Armed Services.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Conditions of service generally, including pension and retirement matters, are not part of the specific task of the Duncan Committee, but the committee can certainly be expected to keep the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind, to the extent that it may be relevant to their work.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. In view of the value of cross-posting between commerce and the Foreign Service, does not the right hon. Gentleman


agree that it might well be of advantage for earlier retirement from the Foreign Service to be possible?

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the rule that feminine members of our Diplomatic Service have to resign when they get married, a rule which is contrary to European convention as well as common sense?

Mr. Roberts: I would not preclude that consideration from the ambit of the Committee's deliberations.

United States Information Agency (Publication)

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has studied the recent issue of the United States information agency's journal, Problems of Communism, a copy of which has been sent to him, which was devoted to documenting political, literary and religious dissent in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will initiate a similar study and publication by a United Kingdom Government agency.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: This issue is being read with interest in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office together with information from a wider range of sources. It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to publish controversial material about the internal affairs of other countries; this subject is best handled by the press and by academic bodies.

Mr. Alison: Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon the passive doctrine of "Hear no evil and see no evil" in matters lying outside the immediate sphere of Government relations with the Soviet Union and adopt the same robust, overt and critical attitude towards persecuted minorities in the Soviet Union that the Soviet Union adopts towards persecuted minorities outside its frontiers?

Mr. Roberts: I assure the hon. Gentleman that our attitude to any form of discrimination, especially on religious grounds, does not lack robustness. But the point of the Question is whether in addition to studying the material, which we are doing, we will issue a publication similar to that of the United States. I

have said that it is not our practice to do so.

Mr. Archer: As this week is being celebrated within Human Rights Year as Prisoners of Conscience Week, will my right hon. Friend try a little harder and accept that questions of human rights are the concern of the whole international community? Will he at least press for the speedy implementation of the draft convention on religious discrimination?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly. United Kingdom representatives take a full part in discussions on these subjects on the human rights bodies of the United Nations, and I take full note of what my hon. Friend has said about the significance of this year.

Rhodesia

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. George Thomson): I have been asked to reply.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (SCHOOLS OF EXCEPTIONAL DIFFICULTY)

The following Written Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. MCNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response the Burnham Committee has made to his request that it should try to devise alternative arrangements for the recognition of schools of exceptional difficulty at which salary additions are to be paid to the teachers; and if he will now proceed with the recognition of such schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer Written Question No. 55.
At its meeting on 18th October the Committee could not reach agreement as to whether or not the problem should be further examined, but the chairman


has assured me that both sides accept responsibility for the difficulties and anomalies inherent in the present scheme.
In the light of this assurance I have told him that I will now proceed with the recognition of individual schools selected according to the priority recommended to me by the local education authorities, within the total sum the Committee has set aside.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McNamara.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision he has announced to the House will be recognised as a right one, bearing in mind especially the need to do justice to the special needs of British children, of all races, in the most difficult areas of our big cities? While recognising the rightness of the course he is taking, will be also bear in mind the special needs of local authorities with responsibilities for these difficult areas?

Mr. Short: I hope that this will make some contribution towards helping the schools in exceptional difficulty to build up their staffs. I am very grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I shall bear his remarks in mind.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of Order. Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, for general future guidance, how a Question which was put in, obviously sponsored by the Department, on Friday, for written reply, is brought forward and answered orally? Will any hon. Member have the right to do this, because, if so, it is abrogating the rights of other Members.

Mr. Speaker: First, Mr. Speaker has not the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman seems to have about sponsoring Questions. Questions appear on the Order Paper. It is for a Minister, if he elects to answer a Question at the end of Question time, to do so. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must resist his impatience. It is not, however, a frequent practice for Ministers to take this opportunity of answering Written Questions.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I appreciate that it is not a frequent practice, because I do not remember it happening during the last 23 years. That is why I am asking: is it a practice that one can adopt for the future? If one can persuade a Department to accept a Written Question on a Friday, can one put it down and get it answered orally on the Monday?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must try his noted powers of persuasion. I cannot interfere between an hon. Gentleman and his attempt to get a Minister to take a Question out of turn.

Sir Charles Taylor: Further to that point of order. I merely want to ask whether there is any precedent for Written Questions being answered verbally without Members of the House being given notice of it?

Mr. Speaker: There is precedent—within the last 23 years in spite of what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) says.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. The curious part about today's business is that the Member who had the Question down was not here to ask it. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here. "] He was not here to ask it when the Minister rose. Is it still in order for a Question to be answered when the Member is not here to ask the Question?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the curiosity of the situation. It is like the Sherlock Holmes story—the dog did not bark. That was the curious part of it. What has happened, however, is in order.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of Order. Since a lot of curious happenings, all sorts of things, have suddenly cropped up which have not cropped up for years, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be kind enough to issue a list of the new things and the old new things that are happening, so that the House can be informed of what is going on?

Mr. Speaker: I have recently issued a list of what the hon. Lady calls the old things. I do not propose to issue a list of the new things.

NORTH SEA GAS RIG (BLOW-OUT)

Mr. Hazell (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement concerning the blow-out on the North Sea gas rig off Norfolk, resulting in the loss of three lives.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): About 9.40 a.m. last Friday, a blow-out, not an explosion, of gas occurred from a well being drilled for production on the Phillips platform in the Hewett gas field. The 40 men on the platform were evacuated without casualty. Unfortunately, two members of the crew of the stand-by vessel, "Hector Gannet", lost their lives and one is missing.
I should like to extend my sympathy to the families and relatives of the men who have been lost. I should also like to try to pay tribute to all those individuals who contributed under very difficult conditions to the success of the rescue operation.
Mr. Adair, a well-known expert in these matters, has been called in by Phillips and is in charge of measures to stop the gas flow, and make the well safe. Provided that all goes well the situation should be fully under control within two to three days. In fact, the House will wish to know that the flow of gas to the surface was stopped at 2.05 p.m. this afternoon, though measures to bring it fully under control continue.

Mr. Hazell: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and associate myself with his expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives?
May I also express deep appreciation and thanks to the crews of the helicopter service, the Lowestoft trawler the "Boston Hornet", and the Cromer lifeboat, which went out under terrible weather conditions and, as a result of whose efforts 40 men were saved from the rig?
May I ask my right hon. Friend three short questions? Can he tell the House what caused the blow-out; is he satisfied with the safety measures applicable to these rigs; and, finally, will he undertake to review all safety regulations concerning them?

Mr. Mason: The accident happened when men were withdrawing the last section of the drill pipe. I do not know whether it was a human or mechanical error, but Phillips is obliged to give us a report. The safety precautions are adequate. A voluminous document, a code of safe practice, is issued as mandatory with every licence we issue to the explorers and producers of North Sea gas.

Dame Irene Ward: Since the rescue ship which turned turtle was manned entirely by brave men from my constituency, in North Shields, may I also associate myself with the expressions of deep regret and sorrow we all feel for the relatives of the men who were lost?
May I, also, ask about safety regulations? I do not find the Minister's answer entirely satisfactory. After an occurrence of this kind, and in view of some of the statements made in the Press by presumably reputable people, would it not be better to hold an independent inquiry to find out whether there is any other way of making these rigs safer? That would, at any rate, be satisfactory to those engaged in operating them.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. The rig is safe and it has not caused an accident or fatality among those employed on it. This was an accident to the supply vessel. No doubt the hon. Lady will be pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has ordered a preliminary inquiry, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, into the loss of the "Hector Gannet".

Dame Irene Ward: Of course, I—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman should not say that sort of thing.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As events have shown that this rig was neither seaworthy nor weatherproof, would my right hon. Friend state what precautions are taken in granting licences for such rigs to ensure that they are seaworthy and weatherproof, and what provision he makes for the crews and for the relatives of those who are injured or killed when such a tragedy occurs?

Mr. Mason: My hon. and learned Friend is under the same misapprehension as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). There has been no accident to the rig as such, and I am satisfied that the safety standards are adequate.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that there is general public anxiety about the number of accidents which have taken place since rigs began to operate in the North Sea? Would he give further consideration to the question of a general safety review? Does he recall that last Session we passed an Order which provided that vessels would not approach closer to certain rigs than five kilometres? Should not this rule have been applied and the rescue conducted by helicopters, thereby saving lives?

Mr. Mason: This was a rescue operation and, therefore, the supply vessel was obliged to go as near as possible to save life. I must refute what has been said about the safety of rigs. I am satisfied that the safety standards are quite adequate, but, as a result of the "Sea Gem" inquiry, I am prepared to consider further legislation which would give statutory backing to the code of practice.

Mr. Leadbitter: My right hon. Friend will agree that when there is an accident at sea this House and the whole country respond with a deep sense of regret and sorrow. I have raised a number of questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have raised a number of questions on rig safety in the past? Whereas I agree that the safety standards are very high, we are dealing with unique conditions. Would he consider whether, during the very heavy weather which we are bound to have over the next few months, standby ships of the Royal Navy could play a part, because some of our lifeboats are expected to do far too much in these conditions?

Mr. Mason: One of the main recommendations of the inquiry into the "Sea Gem" accident was to have a standby vessel operating around every rig 24 hours a day. This is precisely what the vessel in this case was doing. It is there for

safety purposes. It was in the act of rescue that the accident took place to the supply vessel and not to the rig.

Mr. Emery: I declare an interest in this matter. Would the Minister confirm that this was a fixed platform and not a movable rig, as was the case in other accidents? Secondly, would he ensure that his praise is handed to the pilots, both civil and military, who acted in ensuring that the men were taken away from the fixed platform? Lastly, would he confirm that all those concerned are willing to give every co-operation in ensuring that an inquiry takes place into all safety aspects?

Mr. Mason: I am alive to the particular interests of the hon. Gentleman, but the Philips Company has been most co-operative. I agree with him that the helicopter operation was a first-class success. The helicopter pilots operated irrespective of whatever danger there might have been and picked up quite safely everyone who remained on the rig. The whole operation took only an hour.

Mr. Tinn: Would my right hon. Friend say a little more about what machinery there is for the enforcement of safety regulations on rigs, bearing in mind that insurance companies are setting a very high premium of 10 per cent. for insuring risks in the North Sea?

Mr. Mason: There is quite a detailed document, the code of safety practice, which is mandatory every time that I issue a licence. If this code is not complied with, I have the right to withdraw the licence.

RHODESIA (MINISTER'S VISIT)

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. George Thomson): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 1st November, I left for Salisbury on that date to assist in the consideration by Mr. Smith and his colleagues of the proposals for a settlement which we put to them on board H.M.S. "Fearless", set out in Command 3793.
I was in Salisbury from 2nd to 9th November; and again from 13th to 16th November after visiting Zambia, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya and having


conversations with the Heads of State of these countries.
While in Salisbury, my delegation and I held nine full-scale meetings with Mr. Smith and certain of his colleagues and advisers, in addition to a number of informal exchanges of view. No time limit was set for my visit and I left only when both sides were agreed that no useful purpose could be served by my staying longer.
Together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I saw representatives of many different sections of Rhodesian opinion, ranging from Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole to the Chairman of the Rhodesian Front.
Throughout my talks with Mr. Smith I stood firmly by the "Fearless" proposals, and I made it clear to him at all times that any settlement must be fully consistent with the six principles. Some progress was made on certain points, on the basis accepted on both sides that agreement on them would be contingent on an overall agreement being reached.
But this measure of understanding was overshadowed by the number and weight of the points on which we were not able to reach even a contingent agreement of that kind. Mr. Smith and I agreed that we had reached a stage where it would be right for the public to know the facts about what still divided us and what, after prolonged talks, we had found ourselves unable to resolve. I also listed to Mr. Smith the items which I told him I felt obliged to explain to the House. I think that the House has a right to know these and I apologise for taking up time by giving them in detail.
The first of these was, of course, a second safeguard for unimpeded progress to majority rule and against retrogressive amendments of the Constitution. We made it clear in the "Fearless" White Paper that we were prepared to consider alternative methods to achieve this, although we believe that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would provide the best instrument.
I must emphasise that, to be acceptable to us, any alternative method must be fully as effective as that provided by the Judicial Committee. Mr. Smith, however, showed no interest in the other

forms of judicial safeguards mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this House on 22nd October.
In these circumstances, I put forward a further alternative proposal for a second safeguard of a different character, which would not only begin in Rhodesia but would also leave the last word with the Rhodesian people. Under this proposal the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would have the task of deciding whether a proposed amendment was of such a kind that the second safeguard should be brought into operation. This question would only come before the Judicial Committee on an initiative either by an agreed number of members of the Rhodesian Parliament, or by the Constitutional Council in Rhodesia.
If the Judicial Committee considered that the second safeguard should be brought into operation, my proposal would then place fairly and squarely in the hands of the people of Rhodesia themselves, including the African majority, the responsibility and the power to decide whether the amendment should be proceeded with in the Rhodesian Parliament or not. They would take this decision in a referendum of the A and B roll electors voting separately.
This seemed to me both to provide the necessary safeguard for the first and second principles and to avoid the objection which had been raised against our earlier proposal—namely, that it placed the final responsibility for what was in essence a political decision in the hands of a judicial body which did not form part of the political system of Rhodesia. But Mr. Smith told me that he totally rejected the principle on which this alternative proposal was based. I asked Mr. Smith whether he had any proposals of his own for a second guarantee. But he had none to offer.
This is a fundamental point of difference between us. But it is not by any means the only important issue of principle on which we differ.
For example, there is the question of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting as an ordinary court of law, as opposed to acting as a second safeguard. Mr. Smith and his colleagues would not commit themselves to agree to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council continuing,


as in the 1961 Constitution, to hear appeals in such cases.
Other major disagreements also remain. The chief of them, taken in the order of the "Fearless" proposals to which they relate, are as follows.
First, the régime wish to extend the period under the 1961 Constitution for which the legislature can approve the proclamation of a state of emergency. This, as the House will know, is a period of three months at a time.
Hon. Members in all part of the House will share our deep concern over a proposal which would mean lengthening the period for which Rhodesian citizens would be held in detention without charge or trial, and without the Rhodesian Parliament having the opportunity to scrutinise the need for the state of emergency and, if it thought proper, to end it.
Secondly, the régime wish to alter the composition of the legislature as proposed in the "Fearless" document. While accepting a blocking quarter of directly and popularly elected Africans, the régime wanted either fewer elected Africans in the Senate or else more A roll seats in the Lower House and more European seats in the Senate. Again, we could not accept this.
Thirdly, the régime wished to balance an extension—as in both the "Tiger" and "Fearless" proposals—of the B roll franchise by an alteration of the present arrangements for cross-voting. Their suggestion was that the proposed extension of the B roll franchise should be accompanied by a reduction in the existing value of B roll votes cast in elections in A roll seats. That value is at present 25 per cent. Their proposal was that it should be reduced to 10 per cent.
This may seem to be a complex and technical issue. But its essence, I ought to explain to the House, is that it would postpone the date when majority rule might come about. Obviously, we could not agree to such a proposal.
Fourthly, the régime wished to eliminate the "delimitation" formula which is also included in both the "Tiger" and "Fearless" proposals. This provides that as the number of Africans on the A roll increases, the Africans' chances of

capturing A roll seats should increase proportionately.
Fifthly, the régime wished to extend the criteria which the Judicial Tribunal should apply when considering whether detainees and restrictees should be released to take part in the test of acceptability. The "Fearless" proposals already cover cases where the Tribunal is satisfied that the person concerned would himself be likely to commit, or to incite or conspire with others to commit, acts of violence or intimidation.
This is an adequate safeguard for the preservation of public order. The regime wanted to add to this cases where, without any guilt on the part of the individual concerned, others might respond with violence to his release. This, again, we could not agree to.
Sixthly, there were important differences between us over the treatment of those Rhodesian public servants who, since I.D.I., have felt bound to leave Rhodesia in order to remain loyal to the Crown. We felt that, as part of the necessary process of wiping the slate clean, if a settlement were reached they should have the choice of reinstatement or compensation. Mr. Smith said that he could not possibly agree to their reinstatement, although compensation was another matter.
Each of these points, taken individually, is important. But more significant still is that all of them taken together indicate that the régime are not at this stage ready to commit themselves to the necessity of accepting majority rule except in an impossibly remote and indefinite future.
I do not want to be unfair to Mr. Smith on these points. He did say that he believed that if it were possible to reach agreement on the question of the second safeguard our differences on the other points which I have mentioned could be quickly resolved. That may or may not be so. In so far as Mr. Smith meant that he would expect us to give way on them, I made it absolutely clear to him that there could be no question of our doing so. I cannot speak for his own readiness to change his position on them. I can only tell the House, as I have sought to do, the position he took on them when talking to me.
To sum up, my discussion with Mr. Smith showed, in the words of a Press


statement issued before I left Salisbury, that there remains fundamental disagreement on several major matters of principle. We both felt that a prolongation of my stay would not enable us to resolve that disagreement. So I have come back to report to my colleagues and to the House how things stand.
Nevertheless, the proposals in our "Fearless" White Paper and the alternative suggestion in the second safeguard which I put to Mr. Smith in Salisbury remain on the table for consideration, for discussion and, I would hope, for acceptance when reflection in Rhodesia has brought wiser counsel. Meanwhile, of course, sanctions will continue, together with all the other consequences that have flowed from illegality.
My report, I recognise, is a gloomy one. I myself found the last fortnight disappointing and saddening. So fair an opportunity has been turned down that, I am afraid, I could not feel otherwise. But to repeat what I have said before: we for our part are not slamming the door, and perhaps one day the response from the other side of that door will be more constructive than it has so far been.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us an account of his latest discussions in Salisbury. The House may note that the discussions have not been broken off by Her Majesty's Government and I think that a great many will hope that they will be renewed, although, probably, not before the Prime Ministers' conference in January.
The general picture which the right hon. Gentleman has given is disappointing, but has not he reported something of real and concrete importance when he is able to put on paper that Mr. Smith accepts a blocking quarter of directly and popularly-elected Africans? Is not that really the essence of the matter for the protection of the Africans? Therefore, this is surely something gained. [Interruption.] Well, we have our different opinions.
If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government want a second check, can he tell me what Her Majesty's Government's attitude is to a treaty reinforcing the blocking quarter for a number of years? It is a little difficult to assimilate

and put a proper value on these differences as revealed by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he consider giving us information in a rather fuller form, perhaps during the next week or two?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the position on the blocking quarter is something gained. It is certainly a big change from the position which Mr. Smith took up when the right hon. Gentleman was in Salisbury and an even bigger change from the position which he took up when I was last there 12 months ago. It was a change that Mr. Smith envisaged while he was taking part in the talks on "Fearless", although subsequently one was left in a certain ambiguity about what his final position might be. I think that that has now been cleared up, though I want to make it absolutely clear that his agreement on that is subject to an otherwise acceptable package to him. I do not want to misrepresent Mr. Smith's position.
The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, asking why we do not feel that this itself is satisfactory to us. The answer is that the blocking quarter is, in present circumstances in the Rhodesian Parliament, too fragile a safeguard on its own at this stage in time to be adequate. As time passes, and more Africans come into the Rhodesian Parliament, that particular safeguard will become a stronger one. At the moment, however, it is, in Mr. Smith's view, a bare blocking quarter, and in our view a blocking quarter plus one.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked about a treaty. This was discussed in Gibraltar in "Fearless". Mr. Smith seemed to find no interest in this proposal. Of course his objection, as he puts it, in principle is to any second safeguard that is external to the Rhodesian Parliament, outside the four walls of Parliament. His objections to the Privy Council are, I think, even stronger to something that would involve the British Government.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Smith would not commit himself to independence for the majority in the indefinite or remote future. Would he agree that this is the explanation for the rejection of the "Fearless" and "Tiger" proposals, and, indeed, for U.D.I. itself? Would it not be a great


disservice if we pretend otherwise than that unless there is a change of heart the same outcome will come from any future talks?

Mr. Thomson: I think that it is accepted that there is a deep difference between the attitude expressed by Mr. Smith and our attitude. It has always been our point of view that his attitude on this central point must change before there can be a settlement, otherwise the settlement would not be consistent with the principles that we have laid down and, given the fact that force is absolutely ruled out, it is necessary to be ready all the time to search for possibilities of a negotiated settlement, provided that it is an honourable one—which exactly meets the right hon. Member's point.

Mr. Mackintosh: In view of my right hon. Friend's admirable suggestion for getting round Mr. Smith's objection to a second guarantee, and his continued objection to any external check on a revision of the Constitution, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he formed the impression that Mr. Smith was already contemplating, after independence, some alterations or changes in the settlement? If so, what faith would my right hon. Friend have in any settlement which could be agreed on paper terms if Mr. Smith is already contemplating some sort of subsequent alteration?

Mr. Thomson: It would not be helpful to speculate along that line. We have been seeking to make an agreement which contained such safeguards that one could do one's duty of trusteeship to the African majority in Rhodesia and give them the best possible chance of achieving majority rule. That is what is represented by the alternative safeguard which I presented to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Michael Foot: How is it possible for the Government to say that these proposals still lie on the table for accepttance by Mr. Smith when we have made pledges to the Commonwealth, on behalf of the Government, backed by the vote of this House—that there shall be no independence before majority rule—which conflict with leaving this on the table for acceptance at some time? Have not the Government yet learned that Mr. Smith and his régime are bitterly opposed to

majority rule in any form? Cannot the Government act on that fact, which is now evident to the whole world?

Mr. Thomson: I do not accept that our leaving these proposals on the table is in any way inconsistent with any pledges which we have made to the Commonwealth—still less inconsistent with decisions which have been taken in this House.
With regard to the Nibmar pledge, the position is as it has been for a long time. There has been no change in the circumstances such as to justify a review of the Nibmar pledge. That is where we are now.

Sir R. Cary: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is feeling rather gloomy and crestfallen, but he has expressed some hope that these negotiations could, at some future date, be taken further. May I thank him and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the efforts which they have both made to bring the "Fearless" talks to fulfilment?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to the hon. Member for those remarks. I think that if we are to carry this forward—which is the case for leaving these things on the table—it must be recognised that we now need a major move on Mr. Smith's part.

Mr. Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are relieved that there has not been a settlement on the basis of the "Fearless" proposals? Some of us believe that, ultimately, it could lead only to violence and bloodshed. I welcome that part of my right hon. Friend's statement concerning the firm application of economic and allied sanctions. Will he not go further and reaffirm that there shall be no independence before majority rule?

Mr. Thomson: I dealt with my right hon. Friend's last point in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I warned Mr. Smith that an inevitable consequence of a failure to agree at this stage would be that sanctions would go on and would be likely to intensify. But the immediate question is for the new Supervisory Committee of the United Nations. It is for other countries to do as well as we are doing in the sanctions field.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people in this country are extremely glad that he has not slammed the door and that the possibility of a resumption of negotiations is still left open?

Mr. Thomson: My position is simply that in the absence of force and physical powers to solve the Rhodesian problem the only alternative is to seek a negotiated solution. We must never give up the possibility of that, but it must be an honourable solution.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in his discussions with the African leaders, they came anywhere near agreeing even to the "Fearless" proposals? Will he give an undertaking that no further initiative will come from this Government, but that the next step must come from Mr. Smith, and that, meanwhile, sanctions will be tightened and made more comprehensive?

Mr. Thomson: I can confirm my hon. Friend's last point. I have said that, while we will leave our proposals on the table, the next move must come from Mr. Smith.
My talks with the various African leaders were confidential, but I can say that I heard different points of view in different places.

Sir F. Bennett: On the same point, without breaking individual confidences can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he did not find a certain amount of support in the least likely quarters for his attempt to reach a settlement with Mr. Smith, and that this is a factor about which Mr. Smith should think in respect of the attitude of some of his closest neighbours?

Mr. Thomson: I do not want to break any confidences anywhere. I think that there was a good deal of recognition that it was right for us to talk and see what could be done. I was much interested in collecting as many views as I could in a short time. I do not pretend that I was able to cover all the ground, but I gathered as many viewpoints as I could inside Rhodesia, from political and other groups.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the continuation of the present state of affairs is injurious in

Rhodesia, only dedicated racialists can fail to share the sincere regrets which he has expressed? Does he further agree that Mr. Smith's very intransigence shows that he feels that he will be bound by what he eventually agrees to, and does not intend to follow what has been the African custom of ignoring the constitution once he gets independence?

Mr. Thomson: I do not wish to speculate on Mr. Smith's motives. I had better leave the position as I indicated at the end of my statement.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman, whose efforts in Rhodesia hon. Members on both sides of the House accept, yet recognise that all that past negotiations have done and all that future negotiations will do is merely to entrench the consequences of two inherently disastrous decisions—first, the illegal declaration of independence and, secondly, the decision to respond to that declaration with sanctions?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept for a moment that those two matters can be put on equal scales. The tragic blunder—and we all accept this—was the declaration of U.D.I. Once that blunder was made there was bound to be the kind of reactions to it that have flowed from it. I was looking up what was said to Mr. Smith by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) when he was Commonwealth Secretary in the days when he was desperately trying to dissuade Mr. Smith from declaring U.D.I. He told him what would happen, and it has happened.

Dr. Gray: Is there any change in the Nibmar pledge? Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to Mr. Smith that no agreement could be implemented until the Prime Minister had been released from that pledge by other Commonwealth Governments, including the Canadian Government?

Mr. Thomson: I made the position on Nibmar clear to Mr. Smith, as I did to other African leaders, and as I have made clear to this House.

Mr. Hastings: While regretting the outcome of the talks as much as anybody in the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that perhaps the major factor on the


other side is the fear of a return to the bestial intimidation suffered in Rhodesia a few years back when nationalist politics were rife? Is he satisfied that sufficient account was taken of this on this side?

Mr. Thomson: I am convinced that the best and quickest way to get away from violence in Rhodesia is to get a settlement which guarantees the political future of the African majority in that country.

Sir Dingle Foot: Does not the result of the negotiations reaffirm the view expressed by some back benchers on this side of the House that there is no compromise or formula which would be acceptable to the Smith régime and which, at the same time, could be honourably accepted by any British Government?
With regard to my right hon. Friend's talks with the African leaders, are we to understand from his earlier reply that they did not wish their views to be made known by him to the whole world?

Mr. Thomson: With regard to my talks with Mr. Sithole and Mr. Nkomo, because of their detention, both of them inevitably were not in possession of the full details of our proposals. My hon. Friend and I sought to put them in possession of the details, and left a certain amount of documentation with them. We asked them not to come to any final conclusion on our proposals until they had had a chance to study them.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would it not have been helpful and more likely to achieve a settlement in the future if a joint statement could be agreed for release when these talks are adjourned, rather than that the right hon. Gentleman should give his version and then, no doubt, Mr. Smith give his version?

Mr. Thomson: We agreed a joint Press statement to mark the end of the talks. We also agreed—and I am grateful to Mr. Smith for this, despite what I read in the Daily Telegraph this morning—that nothing would be said in Salisbury until I got back to London and reported to this House, just as we agreed after "Fearless" that we should say nothing in London until Mr. Smith got back to Salisbury. However, to carry it further would be to ask a good deal.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that sanctions have begun to produce a devastating effect on the Rhodesian economy, with the result that devaluation of their currency is now in sight—[Laughter.] Perhaps right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite will read the Daily Telegraph. Is not the real hope that sanctions will bring the Smith régime to the ground?

Mr. Thomson: I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that my impression is that sanctions are beginning to have a very deep effect on the Rhodesian economy, though I do not think that the ordinary man in the street in Rhodesia is aware of it. That is an economic phenomenon with which we are not unfamiliar in this country sometimes. The fact that sanctions are having an effect on the economy was one of the reasons that led to the present round of talks.

Mr. Wall: Were there not two major difficulties: first, the elected blocking quarter, which we understand Mr. Smith has accepted; and, second, the matter of appeals to the Privy Council? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper showing Her Majesty's Government's proposals on the second issue, including the treaty which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend, which is an Act of a sovereign Power? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman make a guess as to when the talks are likely to resume?

Mr. Thomson: No, I am not a good guesser. As for a White Paper, I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman reads what I said, which, I appreciate, was very detailed, he will feel that it covers a good deal of the ground. I would not rule out his suggestion, but that would mean joint consultations with Mr. Smith.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the fact that Mr. Smith's firm rejection of any guarantees can only have one result, can my right hon. Friend say on what information Her Majesty's Government felt that it was likely to be useful for him to make this excursion, and can we be assured that he will not be running backwards and forwards to Rhodesia at Mr. Smith's whim until we have firm assurances on the main points?

Mr. Thomson: I have given a firm assurance on my hon. Friend's last point.


On his first point, if he doubts the usefulness of entering into the talks, I cannot agree with him. It was useful to find out whether the point had come when Mr. Smith and his colleagues were prepared to accept a settlement guaranteeing the future of the African majority. The only kind of agreement that we can accept has not yet been reached, but the only alternative to force is to be ready to seek a negotiated settlement, provided that it is an honourable one.

Sir C. Osbome: If the desire of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Sir Philip Noel-Baker) were vouchsafed and the Smith régime were brought crashing to the ground, did the Minister form any impression out there whether there would be a substitute for the Smith regime with whom he could deal? Secondly, is there evidence that guerrilla fighting from the north will affect security inside Rhodesia?

Mr. Thomson: In the present situation, it is not helpful for me to speculate about what is happening inside Rhodesia. I know what I hope will happen. I hope that there will be changes of attitude in Rhodesia which will make a settlement possible.

Dr. John Dunwoody: In the absence of any agreement, and as a constructive suggestion, would my right hon. Friend consider offering educational opportunities in Britain for Rhodesian Africans comparable to those which we would have been prepared to finance in Southern Rhodesia under the "Fearless" agreement?

Mr. Thomson: I note my hon. Friend's opening words, "In the absence of any agreement". I hope that it will be accepted everywhere that the absence of agreement and the details of our disagreements that I have given destroy for ever the rumour about there being some sort of secret agreement. One of the most depressing features of my visit was how difficult it has been to destroy that lie.
As for my hon. Friend's constructive suggestion, I would be happy to look into that, but, of course, we do a certain amount already and no doubt we could consider doing more.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What, in practical terms, would an external safeguard add

to the blocking quarter, which we note Mr. Smith has accepted? In the event of a breach of an agreed constitution, what would Her Majesty's Government do? Would they use force?

Mr. Thomson: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman did not follow in detail the alternative which I put forward, which left the final decision, just as it did the initial decision, firmly inside Rhodesia. The final decision is with the ordinary voters of all races in Rhodesia. That is not an external safeguard, but it is one which was turned down by Mr. Smith just as decisively as he turned down the proposal concerning the Privy Council.

Mr. Judd: Contrary to the views of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), would my right hon. Friend accept that there is every reason for the British people believing that Her Majesty's Government already have gone far enough, and that the only possible outcome of the talks is the withdrawal of the "Fearless" proposals?

Mr. Thomson: I thought that the views of the British people were probably reflected fairly accurately in a public opinion poll conducted by the Sunday Times, from which it appears that the majority believed that we were right to seek an agreement while believing that it would be wrong to enter into a dishonourable settlement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the two accepted leaders of African opinion in Rhodesia had not been informed of the "Fearless" proposals before he saw them? If that is so, what confidence does it give us that Mr. Smith will allow accepted African opinion to be voiced during the interim period?

Mr. Thomson: I was seeking to give an accurate account of the situation in which I found these two African leaders. I would remind my hon. Friend that it was one of the most important features of our proposals, and one from which we would not move an inch, that there should be a test of acceptance in which there would be ample time for all leaders of opinion in Rhodesia to make up their minds for or against our proposals, to campaign for or against them, and make sure that the final verdict was accepted


internationally as representing the opinion of all in Rhodesia.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Reverting to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), in the event of the Privy Council deciding that the entrenched clauses had been breached, and the Rhodesian Government opposing that decision, can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Privy Council could put its verdict into effect?

Mr. Thomson: We were seeking to find the most adequate safeguards on the matter that we could. As I sought to explain, Mr. Smith's objection to the Privy Council was that he regarded it as external to Rhodesia and the Rhodesian Parliament. Therefore, we put up an alternative which met those objections, but, equally, he rejected it.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my view, the majority of people active in the Labour Party will heave a sigh of relief that no agreement was reached with the Rhodesian Front, because they detest the racialist nature of the dictatorship operating in Rhodesia at the moment?

Mr. Thomson: We must all have our individual emotions on this matter. My hon. Friend will not expect me to share his kind of relief, because, unlike him, I knew from the beginning that Her

Majesty's Government would not surrender our principles or obligations to the people of Rhodesia.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Though this is important, we must move on.

BILL PRESENTED

IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Bill to confer rights of appeal against the exercise by the Secretary of State and officers acting under his instructions of their powers in respect of the admission into and removal from the United Kingdom of persons to whom section 1 or 6 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 applies, and to enable provision to be made by Order in Council for conferring corresponding rights of appeal on aliens; to enable deportation orders to be made without the recommendation of a court in the case of persons to whom the said section 6 applies who fail to comply with conditions subject to which they have been admitted into the United Kingdom; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. James Callaghan; supported by Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. William Ross, Mr. George Thomas, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Merlyn Rees; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to announce that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger):
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which introduces a new and undesirable element into the British Constitution and threatens to undermine the independence of honourable Members of this House.
However, that will not prevent him from voting or speaking according to the terms of that Amendment, if he should succeed in catching my eye.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
From the frequency with which I appear to be at the Dispatch Box, hon. Members may think that I cannot be kept away. I promise that it would be quite a simple matter to keep me away if there were not so many Home Office Bills coming along and debates having to take place.
This Measure carries out the Government's intention to introduce legislation this Session, our aim being to complete, with the co-operation of the House, consideration of the Bill and of the regulations flowing from it in time to include any new age-group which the House may decide on in the register of electors to be published in February, 1970. It is, therefore, necessary for me to ask for the co-operation of the House in pushing ahead—I suggest with not undue speed—with the consideration of the Bill so that we can get any new age-group on to the register in time.
The Bill owes its existence to the recommendations of your Conference on Electoral Law, Mr. Speaker, the Electoral Advisory Conference, which was comprised of officials and other functionaries in this sphere dealing with a number of machinery matters, and the White Paper which the Government published last July, Cmnd. 3717, which was the subject of our debate a few weeks ago, last Session.
The Bill also amends the law relating to local government elections. Some of

the Amendments are necessary to bring that law in line with the changes which we propose for Parliamentary elections, the most obvious example being the voting age. Other amendments are mainly concerned with points of machinery, and they derive from the recommendations of the Conferences on Local Government Elections Law, which met earlier this year and which were called at the invitation of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. There are also two policy changes affecting the local government franchise and candidature for local government elections on which the Government reached their own conclusion. I will come to these when discussing Clause 15 of the Bill.
Thus, in addition to the recent debate which we held, I can claim that every item in the Bill has been the subject of very careful scrutiny. In view of some of the comments made in our last debate, I think that I should state, in terms of arithmetic, that the Government have accepted 60 of the 71 recommendations that came from your conference, Mr. Speaker, and that, in the case of the Electoral Advisory Conference, the Government have accepted 42 of the 45 recommendations therefrom.
To the extent that the provisions in the Bill do not reflect wholly the advice which we received—although overwhelmingly they do, except on one or two important issues—I remind the House that, as I said on 14th October, the Government devoted six months and a great many meetings to the various Reports and gave great consideration to the conclusions that were reached. It is fair to say, therefore, that the ground has been well prepared for the Bill. There may be differing views about it, but nobody can claim that the Bill has been brought forward in haste or without substantial consideration.
Before considering the Clauses, it might help if I commented on the general scope and form of the Bill. It deals with the law relating to Parliamentary elections—elections to this Parliament at Westminster—throughout the United Kingdom. It also deals with the law relating to local government elections in England, Wales and Scotland.
As to the form of the Bill, I wish that I could point to a tidy and logical pattern, with each provision falling neatly into


its appointed place. But in the nature of things, this was not possible. If the recent review of electoral law points to one conclusion more than any other, it is that, fundamentally, the electoral machinery as we have known it for the last 20 years—certainly as most of us in the House have known it—is sound and is still working well.
That was a major conclusion to come from the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference. On only two matters are radical changes called for—the voting age and the question of party labels; but even these are reflections of change in the social and political climate, rather than of any defect in the existing law.
On the question of broadcasting by candidates, the law is obscure. That is perhaps not surprising, since it was not framed with such broadcasts in mind. Our proposals in the Bill take as their starting point what was generally understood to be the effect of the law as it now stands, make some changes with a view to rendering such broadcasts easier to put on and put the whole matter in clear and unmistakable terms.
Alterations or extensions effected by the Bill are to be found both in its Clauses and Schedules, particularly Schedule 2. In the main, the Clauses are aimed at amending Sections of the relevant existing law. But the Clauses also amend those Parliamentary and Local Government Elections rules that are connected with the subject matter of the Clauses. The Parliamentary and Local Government Elections rules are set out in Schedules 2 and 3, and Schedule 2 is concerned solely with amendments of those rules. I have gone into this technical explanation because, in so doing, we may save time in Committee, when hon. Members will be able to see to what they are referring and why these matters have been arranged in the way I have described.
Schedule 1 regulates in detail the procedure to be adopted by the Registrar of Political Descriptions, set out in Clause 12. It sets out in great detail precisely what those provisions are, and I shall return to this matter.
Clause 1 is a major part of the Bill. It reduces the minimum age for voting at Parliamentary and local government

elections to 18. It is clear, from our earlier debates and from the recommendations of your conference, Mr. Speaker, that there is general agreement that some reduction in the age is called for. As I see it, the choice lies between the age of 20, which was recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference, and the age of 18, which was the age of majority recommended by the Latey Committee for other than civic purposes and which is now embodied in the Family Law Reform Bill, which, I understand, will be considered in another place next week. The arguments were fully gone into in the debate on the White Paper, and the Government have considered the matter again in the light of that debate.
A number of hon. Members, and especially those who served on your conference, Mr. Speaker, put the case for fixing the age at 20. Others, including those who did not serve on that conference, thought that the age would be better at 18. Sufficient spoke in favour of 18 to give a fair indication that the sense of the House is divided on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That would not be unusual in a Chamber of this sort. There is, I think, little need for me today, having gone into the age question only a month ago, to repeat all the arguments I adduced then. There is no new argument of which I am aware.
Eighteen is the age which Latey found to be suitable for the assumption of civic responsibilities. It is an age which appeals to the Government as being appropriate for the casting of a vote. This is a matter of judgment and opinion on which the House will want to make up its mind, the Government having made up their mind, as I have indicated.

Sir Douglas Glover: rose—

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: As I was saying—

Sir D. Glover: Will there be a free vote?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Minister to decide, first, whether he will give way, and, secondly, to whom.

Mr. Callaghan: I will gladly give way to the senior of the two.

Sir D. Glover: The Home Secretary is giving us a very reasonable speech. Can he tell us whether, in Committee, we will have a free vote?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that that question arise out of what I am saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] Oh, no, it does not, but I will give him an answer, subject to its being regarded as being in order.
The Government have made up their minds on this subject, and the hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that they propose to ask their supporters to join them in the Division Lobby. It would be surprising in such circumstances that we should want to shilly shally, and to say that we do not mind whether they vote or not. So we shall advise all our hon. Friends to support us, and we hope that enough of them will do so. We will, of course, welcome any hon. Members opposite who wish to do the same, including particularly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who has his views on the age of voting.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As there is a division of opinion in all parts of the House, and as the Government have rejected the recommendations of Mr. Speakers Conference, surely there is a strong case for allowing the House to express its own opinion free of the party Whip.

Mr. Callaghan: I have no doubt that the House will express its own opinion. As far as I am aware there is no one capable of dragooning any hon. Member into a Division Lobby—[Interruption.] It may apply to the sheep on the other side, but not to the wolves on this side. Personally, I think that the Opposition are on a false scent here. It would be remarkable if the Government did not give some advice to their followers. It would be astonishing if they did not give that advice.

Mr. Michael English: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a little odd that hon. Members opposite should accuse hon. Members on this side of breaking their election promises and then express pained surprise when, as my right hon. Friend has said, we propose to carry out something that the electors were promised, and approved, in 1966?

Mr. Callaghan: Hon. Members opposite object both to our carrying out our pledges and to our not carrying them out. What they really object to is any situation other than one in which, by divine right, they feel they should be constantly ruling the country—[Interruption.] But I had better return to the Clauses.
The remainder of Clause 1 need give little ground for controversy. By subsection (2) effect is given to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference that young voters should appear in the register for the year in which they reach voting age, and should be able to vote as from the date on which they attain that age. This gets rid of the cumbersome and confusing arrangements about "Y" voters which has been so much criticised. Subsection (2) also provides that if a person who is in the register will be of voting age by the date of the poll he may be treated, in effect, as an elector before that date for such purposes as, say, applying for absent voting facilities or being appointed as a proxy. That seems to be a sensible reform, although I doubt whether much use will be made of it.
The changes in the franchise, and a number of other provisions of the Bill—for instance, those relating to Service declarations and absent voting—are applied, with slight modifications, to ward elections in the City of London, by Clause 23.
I do not propose to spend a great deal of time on Clauses 2 to 5. They give effect to various recommendations made in the course of the review of electoral law, either by Mr. Speaker's Conference or the Electoral Advisory Conference, on such things as continuous registration of Servicemen, extension of the Service voter arrangements to British Council staff, easier registration for merchant seamen, disfranchisement of offenders in prison, enabling wives or husbands of absent voters who accompany their spouses also to vote by post or by proxy, and various minor easements in the absent voting arrangements.
I might point out that we do not seek by Clause 5 to disfranchise persons detained in approved schools or in psychiatric hospitals. It would be difficult—and, in the Government's view, undesirable—to try to distinguish between


those detained following a conviction and others.
Clause 7 lays on the registration officer the general duty of ensuring the accuracy of the electoral register—this was recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference—and enables him also to correct clerical and printing errors. He will still have no power to make alterations which could have been the subject of a claim or objection while the electors' lists are on public display between 28th November and 16th December.

Mr. Joel Barnett: While my right hon. Friend is on the question of the function of the registration officer, as everyone must be concerned not only to get the maximum number on the register but to get the maximum number of people to be able to vote—that is, by postal or other method—would it not be as well to consider giving the further task to the registration Officer, rather than leaving it to political parties and individual voters, of getting voters a postal or a proxy vote? Would my right hon. Friend consider in Committee the possibility of giving this extra function to the registration officer?

Mr. Callaghan: The registration officers are a little chary about taking on this kind of function, not only because they already have a number of responsibilities but because they do not want, as far as they can help it, to extend the area in which they have to exercise discretion. We can certainly examine in Committee any amendments my hon. Friend may care to put down, but I have found that to be the registration officers' general approach to that kind of question.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I intervene to ask my right hon. Friend to consider one question sympathetically. Why has he turned down the idea of having two registers a year? I understand that it is a matter of finance, but, ready for the time when finance is not such a problem, could we not have in the Bill an enabling power for two registers a year to be brought in by statutory Order when the Government think the time is ripe?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure whether the Money Resolution, as drawn, would permit of such an order being made. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that

it is a question of cost. I do not carry the figure in my head, but it is big—about £2 or £3 million a year—and in present circumstances the degree of additional accuracy that is likely to be attained, although substantial, was not thought to be decisive in the matter.
As we all know, the register, as it becomes stale, does fall away in accuracy. I appreciate that there is a very strong case for doing what my hon. Friend suggests, but the Government have ruled it out at the moment on the ground that it would cost about £3 million extra a year. In any case, as I say, I do not know that the Money Resolution would cover that point.
Clause 8 increases the maximum permitted election expenses. There was no challenge to this in the House when we had our recent debate, and, therefore, I assumed that we should go on with the figures that were mentioned. There is one small cloud, as big as a man's hand, which forecasts the arrival of the decimal currency system. Instead of there being, as before, in the case, for example, of a county constituency a sum of 2d. per elector, the figure is now 1s. for every six electors. The 1s. will be the equivalent of five new pennies, so that hon. Members will not be able to get more than six electors for that amount, and if they want only one it will still cost them 5 new pennies. However, I do not think that it will make very much difference to anyone.
Clause 9, dealing with broadcasting, is very important. Subsection (1) gives effect to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which was slightly modified in the Government's conclusions as set out in the White Paper in July. During an election it will now be lawful for candidates to appear in a broadcast item if all of them agree to its taking place, even though one or more of them does not take part. By limiting these arrangements to items
about the constituency or electoral area,
the way is left clear for general party political broadcasts to take place without infringement of the law. I have long felt that it is wrong that a single candidate who does not wish to take part should be able to prevent all others taking part.

Sir Cyril Osborne: He still can.

Mr. Callaghan: He can veto it, but the change will be that he will say, "I shall be campaigning 40 miles away and I do not want to take part in the broadcast. You can take part even though I am not present."

Sir C. Osborne: A candidate 40 miles away can still say that he will not agree to the broadcast. There will be the same veto, so there is no change in the situation.

Mr. Callaghan: This is what Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended and is what I am asking should be done in a way in which I think hon. Members would prefer.
The candidate may say, "I do not wish to take part, but I do not mind if you do". This seems to be sensible. I am told by one weekly periodical that it ought to be put the other way round and that we should say no one should be able to veto a broadcast if the broadcasting authorities are willing to offer it to all the candidates. I do not see that it should be in the hands of the broadcasting authorities.
They would be able to say, "We have arranged a broadcast for all of you tomorrow night. We hope that you can all turn up; it will be at 7.30. You cannot come? That is very deplorable, but we have provided equal facilities". That would be a monstrous proposition which would be putting far too much power in the hands of the broadcasting authorities. I hope that I have got this right by providing that a candidate could say, "I do not want to go, but you can carry on". Personally, I should feel it far more worth while to be campaigning in the streets than to spend a lot of time preparing for a short broadcast.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Surely, if this Opportunity were given to the broadcasting authorities, one could rely upon them to behave in a reasonable way? It is quite wrong for the Home Secretary to suggest that the broadcasting authorities would abuse any trust placed in them in the manner to which he has referred.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that they would start with the intention of behaving in a reasonable way, but there are different interpretations of behaving in a reasonable way at the height of an election, when not everyone is so calm and

considering the matter so coolly as we are this afternoon. This is the way in which it is phrased in the Bill, but we shall no doubt discuss it again in Committee.
Reasonable equality of treatment for those taking part in an election broadcast is secured by subsection (2), which makes it an offence for those concerned with putting on the item to show favour. By subsection (4) the B.B.C. and other television authorities are, subject always to their general duty to be impartial, given the same freedom of reporting and comment as the law allows to the Press. That was a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It is a substantial reform which I dare say the B.B.C. and Independent Television will welcome.
Clause 12 deals with permitted registered political descriptions in nomination papers and ballot papers. It has been suggested that by these provisions we are importing a novel—not to say unconstitutional—element into our electoral process. I regard this, as I said earlier, as no more than reflecting a change in the social and political climate. I believe that a person is entitled to know to what party the person for whom he is voting belongs. The voter is well within his rights as a citizen to vote for a party and not for an individual. I believe that there is a residual fiction about voting for an individual in many cases.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) said, when we discussed this matter last time, when he wound up the debate for the Opposition, there is little doubt that the general public would agree to this I do not think that there is much difference between us on this.
I have found, rather to my surprise, that the present ban on references to political activities has existed only for the last 20 years. Before that, it was a case of "anything goes". We now propose both to recognise the fact of party affiliations and to subject references to them to a system of control. The reason it was altered at the time—but I believe in the wrong way—was that someone described himself as "Labour" on a ballot paper. The 1947 Committee considered it and ruled it out.
Provided that we have the Schedule right—and I think that it is broadly right,


but I shall want to know what the Committee decides when we get to that stage—it is better that we should recognise both the fact of party affiliations and subject reference to them to a system of control. There were signs that this was getting out of hand, and this seems to be the best way of dealing with it.

Mr. Denis Coe: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has excluded local elections, where undoubtedly the greatest confusion is likely to arise?

Mr. Callaghan: I gladly gave way to my hon. Friend, because he has done so much work on this matter, but if he had paused for a moment he would have found that I was coming to that point.
This is a feature of control which is most difficult. The length and complexity of Clause 12 and the related Schedule 1, though clearly necessary, are such as to make the scheme a practical proposition only for Parliamentary elections and so far as I can see, virtually impossible to apply in practice to local government elections. They have substantial differences in party organisation and a far greater number of organisations contesting those elections. There is a great number and variety of local authorities and a great number of last-minute interventions.
I agree that in many cases the problem is greater in many local authorities than in Parliamentary elections, but that does not invalidate the general proposition about putting descriptions on the ballot paper. I left this out because I was not satisfied that there was a scheme which would meet the local authority elections point. I will consider, in Committee, whether it is possible to do something in this way. My mind is not completely closed on the subject. A number of propositions have been put forward, but they are fraught with practical difficulties.

Mr. Charles Pannell: If we are to have these descriptions on the Parliamentary ballot papers, which I have never been convinced is a good thing, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility where registration has been accepted nationally of Labour, Conservative, or Liberal that it should be accepted locally? The rest could sort themselves out. They usually call themselves "Independent", whatever they are.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that that would be fair, but, leaving that argument on one side, the authorisation, of course, attaches to a particular candidate, and candidates would not be the same in local government elections as in national Parliamentary elections. We would, therefore, have to go through all this process for local government election candidates. I wonder whether it would be fair to say that everyone else falls outside. It is difficult, but this proposition is a means of informing the elector about what he is voting for.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I am not ready to give way to the hon. Member.
Of the remaining provisions of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The last time I gave way to the hon. Member he was extremely unfair.
Of the remaining provisions of the Bill, I think I need make special mention of only three: removal of the non-resident local government franchise; abolition of the property qualification at local government elections; and hours of poll at Parliamentary elections.
Clause 15 deals with the first and second of these. I wrote to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Party about this. After a lapse of some weeks I had to publish the Bill, because of the necessity for proceeding with the timetable I have already outlined. Therefore, I was not able to get the observations of the Opposition. I do not complain about that. I hope that they do not complain about my publishing the Bill before I had their observations.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman had mine.

Mr. Callaghan: I was about to award the hon. Gentleman a halo. I had a reply from the Liberal Party expressing its agreement with our proposals. The Greater London Council and the local authority associations of England and Wales object to the proposals that I am bringing forward.
I will leave hon. Members opposite to develop their case. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be fully capable of dealing with it when he winds up. I


warn hon. Members opposite now in advance that they will have a doughty opponent in my right hon. Friend, because abolition of the property qualification for local government candidates in England would be doing no more than bringing the law in England into line with that in Scotland, where they have got along very well without that qualification for a number of years.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Home Secretary give way, because this is a Scottish point?

Mr. Callaghan: This is not a Scottish point.

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with this later, because the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that Clause 15 will not apply to Scotland. From Schedule 4 and enactments already in existence it appears that much of the equivalent of Clause 15, if not all of it, may be applied to Scotland. This is of great concern in Scotland. We would be grateful for a clarification later this evening.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will deal with this point. If it says only some provisions, I assume that it means some provisions and not all provisions. I do not know what the concern of Scotland is, unless those in Scotland feel that they want the business vote there. I have not heard that particularly expressed. I warn hon. Members who want to make this point that they will have to develop it against that background.

Mr. Tom Boardman: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I have already given way enough.
I have been handed the document which was put out by the Labour candidate at a recent by-election. It says:
Do you know that several hundred people who reside outside the Leeds boundary but have business interests in Leeds have a vote in City Ward?
This candidate was fighting City Ward. He then set out where they live:
Some of them live as far away as Renfrewshire. Surrey, London, Oxford, Kent and

Warwickshire. Others live at Bridlington, Knaresborough, Selby and Otley.
Is it not sensible that the residents on a housing estate in Leeds should be represented by someone living in Leeds rather than someone living in Oxfordshire or Renfrewshire?

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the lady in question who lives in Renfrewshire employs a very large number of citizens in the centre of Leeds and runs there a worldwide organisation which is one of the largest dollar earners that there are there?

Mr. Callaghan: I am very ready to accept that, but I do not see what difference it makes to the proposition on the whole. Leeds residents should vote for Leeds councillors—that is all; likewise in every other town and city.
To the extent that there is genuine concern about this—I do not rely on this; I mention it in passing—I think that the Maud Committee, if it recommends any larger boundaries, may redress the position. This may be some solace to hon. Members opposite. However, I do not rely on that, because to me that is not the essential thing. [Interruption.] I doubt whether the boundaries of Leeds will go as far as Renfrewshire.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the Home Secretary therefore give us an assurance—this is on the English point—that both the Maud Committee and the Boundary Commission reports will have been received and implemented before this part comes into operation?

Mr. Callaghan: If I had thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me that, I would not have given way. That is nothing to do with the Bill and I would be out of order if I were to attempt to discuss it now. Neither of these changes will apply—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite capable of evading the rules of order. I know that. Neither of these changes will apply to the City of London—

Sir D. Glover: That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not being disrespectful if I say that someone evades


the rules of order. I am being disrespectful only if I say that Mr. Speaker condones it.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: What the Secretary of State means is "avoids the incidence of the rules of order".

Mr. Callaghan: I always thought that avoidance was legal and evasion illegal. However, I will not pursue that; I must get on.
Neither of these changes will apply to the City of London which, with its very small resident population and its heavy local government responsibilities, constitutes a quite special and exceptional case. Nor will these changes affect councillors now in office, who will be able to serve until their normal term expires in due course.
I come now to the matter of polling hours at Parliamentary elections. This is the one major change which is effected, not in a Clause of the Bill, but in a Schedule—in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. This is for the good technical reason that the provision to be amended is itself not in a Section of the Representation of the People Act, but in Schedule 1 to that Act. This is another instance in which, as explained in the White Paper, the Government have thought it right to depart from the recommendation of no change which was made by Mr. Speaker's Conference.
I cannot claim that our decision to extend the hours of poll at parliamentary, although not local government, elections, met with universal enthusiasm in the debate on the White Paper in October. Before we took the decision, as I said in our previous debate when I was challenged, representative returning officers had pointed to the administrative difficulties likely to be involved in a closing hour of 9.30 p.m., which was what at first the Home Office had in mind, and they renewed their representations in stronger terms. I also have had pointed out to me that the extension will mean difficulties for party organisations and party workers. However, there it is.
I think that it is important that the electors should have the opportunity to vote and be given as much opportunity as possible. That is why the Government

have included in the Bill this extension of the time. I have naturally been interested, as I am sure that the rest of the House has, by the use of voting machines in the United States.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad that the Home Secretary, by giving way to me, has rediscovered his benevolence, although he is still being despotic. What consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to the damaging effects which might flow from prolonged delay in the announcement of the results of a General Election? The House generally seems to be agreed that it is important that these should be known as soon as possible. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the extension of the polling hour is likely to lead to a great deal more counting the following day and thus a great delay in the publication of the result?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it is bound to lead to more counting the following day; I agree with that. That is why I was coming on to discuss possible improvements which we might look to offset that disadvantage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not for the next election."] That is only one election. I assume that elections will go on for many years after that.
Under the present law, we in this country cannot use voting machines. As far as I know their use is currently limited to parts of the United States, where they take two forms. One involves the use of a ballot paper which is either marked with magnetic ink or punched with a hole with a view to its being electronically counted. Its use explains why those of us who sat up got the results so quickly when we watched the recent American elections.
The other resembles a fruit machine and it requires a voter to pre-set a series of levers indicating the candidates of his choice, both as elected representatives and for various official posts. He then pulls a master lever and the machine records the vote on appropriate dials. There are precautions against manipulation, but there is no subsequent record of how the voter has voted; I think that this is a disadvantage of the system.
Mr. Speaker's Report on Electoral Law did not make any reference to this subject, but I think it is of great interest and that we ought to follow it up. Therefore, the Government have put in hand


a feasibility study of the use of computer and related techniques both for voting and for vote counting. This is being undertaken by a joint automatic data processing unit—I apologise for the term—which is shared jointly by the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police, but there is no sinister significance to be read into that.
They are studying what can be done in this way in a working party which is chaired by the Home Office and includes representatives of those concerned in the conduct of elections in England and Wales and in Scotland. I have asked whether there may be any prospect of our moving to a system of this sort. I have no final information on when we shall have the report, but I hope that it may be received in the summer of next year. Four members of the working party went to the United States to study procedures in the recent Presidential election, and I hope that what they saw will enable them to come back with information which might be of value to us.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am encouraged to hear what he says about the use of mechanical and electronic machines for speeding up the counting of votes. But is he aware that Mr. Speaker's Conference considered this matter? We sent to the then Home Secretary a paper which we had received showing how it could be done and we asked that full consideration be given to it.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's recollection is at fault there. Mr. Speaker's Conference considered the question in the context of registration of electors. In that connection, I ought to say that the Government did what Mr. Speaker's Conference asked. A feasibility study was carried out, but the conclusion—which I accepted—was that, in the absence of something like a national numbering system, a centralised computer-based electoral register would not be sufficiently accurate and, therefore, in the absence of such a numbering system, it did not seem possible to go ahead with it. We may come to a national numbering system for other purposes, perhaps, and it might then be possible to have a better system of registration—the point

which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) had in mind earlier. But that would be some years off yet. I see from my notes here that copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House, so that hon. Members will be able to study it there.

Sir C. Osborne: As an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, could the right hon. Gentleman say about how much the new machines would cost?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. That is one of the pieces of information which I hope to have from the working party when it reports back to me. It is one of the matters I have asked it to examine. Clearly, in the light of all I have said about a second register, the hon. Gentleman's suspicions are probably well founded. I imagine that any Chancellor of the day would look rather narrowly at proposals for voting machines unless we could show him that we should save money in other directions.

Mr. Hogg: If the right hon. Gentleman had a jackpot, he might actually get people to pay to vote.

Mr. Callaghan: The best jackpot I can think of will be the return of a Labour Government at the next election.
Perhaps I should finish on that note. I have not tried to cover all the Bill's provisions; they will, no doubt, be argued out in Committee. I do not think that one can accept the argument which was advanced in the last debate, that the Government should uncritically and unanimously accept a Report from Mr. Speaker's Conference, however wise, all-powerful and all-inclusive that body may be. One cannot push that argument too far. Nevertheless, I have shown that the Government have basically accepted most of the recommendations which have come forward, and, where we have altered them or put forward our own, I hope that it will be agreed that there is at least a good case for doing so.
I am sure that the Bill will benefit from scrutiny in Committee, as there is a lot of non-party material in it. I look forward to the Committee stage. I promise the House that I shall approach it with a view to accepting Amendments where they can be accepted, if they are


shown to be better than the drafting of the Bill as it now stands.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for the care which he took in explaining the Bill, but also for the manner in which he presented it, with his customary good humour.
The main part of the Bill implements the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference and of the Electoral Advisory Conference, which included all-party representation. Many of the proposals in the Bill will make useful reforms which we on this side fully support. Although many of the reforms, taken by themselves, are of minor import, it can be said that they add up to a useful package which will improve the system of voting at Parliamentary and local government elections.
Once again, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I express our gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of your conference for the work which you and they did. Also, we express our gratitude to all those who served on the Home Office Advisory Conference, which included representatives of local authorities and of the main political parties.
I am glad that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill adopts the vast majority of the proposals of both Mr. Speaker's Conference and the Home Office Advisory Conference. If I concentrate this evening on the more controversial part of the Bill, I hope that the House will not think that I am ignoring the importance of those parts of it upon which there will be general agreement in the House. There are questions arising on the main part of the Bill which we shall wish to pursue in Committee, which, I understand, will be a Committee of the whole House. I take up now—I shall not refer to it again—the question of election expenses. We accept in principle the proposals in the Bill. If we have Amendments to put forward, they will be Amendments on detail.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, if the proposals in Clause 1 are to be adopted in time for the 1970 register, it will be necessary for the Bill to have a

fairly quick passage. It will be helpful if the Secretary of State for Scotland can tell us the date by which this much be achieved. It will not be our wish on this side to delay the Bill unnecessarily, although it will be our duty to give careful examination to its provisions.
Now, leaving aside the vast mass of the Bill for discussion in Committee, I turn to some of the matters which we on this side regard as more or less controversial. First, the question of extending voting hours. The proposal here, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, is directly contrary to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which recommended that there should be no change in the hours of polling. No hon. Member on either side would wish to restrict facilities for anyone to vote where a genuine need for such facilities can be shown. However, my information—I do not think that it is far wrong—is that the heaviest polling is almost all constituencies comes usually between 8 and 8.30 p.m. and that polling falls off to a small trickle between 8.30 and 9 p.m., there being very few people who leave it until the last possible moment.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some polling districts where there happens to be a large electorate great confusion and crowding can occur at the last minute or two through the sheer weight of the electorate in that district?

Mr. Sharples: If there are difficulties about this, the Government should have presented them to the House, which is being asked to make a decision on the matter without any evidence having been presented to it. What is more, no evidence of this kind was presented to the right hon. Gentleman's Electoral Advisory Conference. I do not know what evidence was presented to Mr. Speaker's Conference on the subject. Our difficulty is that we do not know what that evidence was, but, in the light of all the evidence the Conference had, it come to the conclusion that there should be no change in the voting hours.

Mr. Callaghan: May I intervene on a technical matter? My Electoral Advisory Conference was not asked to consider this question. That is why no evidence was put forward. I do not know what it


would have been if it had been asked to consider it.

Mr. Sharples: Evidence was presumably put forward to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and in the light of all the evidence it came to the conclusion that there should be no change. In our last debate on these matters I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he could say what that evidence was, and he did not do so. I must come to the conclusion that it does not exist.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must remember that every hon. Member who spoke in that debate on the White Paper was under Mr. Speaker's urging to be brief, because many hon. Members wanted to speak. I for one had a great deal of evidence to present from my constituency on this subject, but I did not want to take too much time.

Mr. Sharpies: It is the Government's proposal, and it is for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to present evidence, if there is any to be presented.
One thing that was made quite clear by the Home Secretary was that the extra hour, for Parliamentary elections only, is opposed by every organisation concerned with the conduct of elections. He admitted quite frankly that it must lead to the declaration of results being delayed, and to more results being declared on the following day.
I was not very impressed by the dissertation at the end of his speech about voting machines, which should be considered entirely separately from the question of the extra hour. Their use is a very big issue, and should be referred to a Speaker's Conference before there is a fundamental change in voting procedure of the kind the right hon. Gentleman outlined. I heard of the proposal for the first time this afternoon, and view it with grave misgivings.

Mr. English: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman criticises my right hon. Friend for not producing evidence on a change in the hours and then suggests that the voting machine change should be referred to a Speaker's Conference, which would not publish the evidence. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend does what he proposes—has it investigated and publishes the evidence

to the world—and does not hide it away in a Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Sharples: A fundamental change of this kind should not be made without first being referred to a Speaker's Conference. In our last debate on these matters I spoke about the desirability of publishing the evidence to a Speaker's Conference. This is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps by a slip of the tongue, the hon. Gentleman referred to a "proposal" to change to voting machines. There is no proposal. I have instituted a feasibility study, and when we see whether such a change is feasible we can consider whether a proposal should be made, and by whom it should be considered. There is no point in referring it to a Speaker's Conference, which will have no evidence before it until it sees the results of a feasibility study.

Mr. Sharples: We want to consider not only the feasibility, but, very much more important, the desirability.
One clear recommendation from the Home Office Electoral Advisory Conference discussions on local government elections was that the closing hour of polling stations should be the same at General Elections as it is at local government elections. This view was supported by all parties and by all who took part in the right hon. Gentleman's conference. The proposal before us will not only create considerable additional difficulties, both for party organisations and those concerned with the conduct of elections, but will lead to grave confusion.
If there are different hours for the closing of polling stations at local government elections and at General Elections, and if there is a local government election shortly after a General Election, many people will believe that the polling station closes at 10 o'clock. They will go there between nine and 10 o'clock and will be prevented from voting in the local election because the polling station has closed. If there is to be a change—and I do not believe that there is a necessity for it, it must be the same for local elections and General Elections, and must not be as proposed in the Bill.
I turn to the question of party labels, which we discussed in our debate on 14th


October. I said then, and still believe, that many people desire to be given a better indication when they are polling of the political parties which candidates represent. This applies particularly to local elections; I do not think that the same difficulties have arisen to any extent at Parliamentary elections. But possibly the voter needs help at local elections, particularly where there is a large number of candidates—possibly up to three representing the same party—and he must make up his mind between perhaps 12 or 16 people on the same ballot paper. The Government have put forward a very elaborate and complex scheme, and that is almost certainly the reason why it is has not been possible to extend their proposals to the conduct of local elections—the one place where this facility is really needed.
The Government's proposal introduces a system of registration which it takes four pages of a Schedule to explain. Not only will a candidate for a Parliamentary election have to have a statutory dog licence, but there is provision for a fee to be charged for people to register their names. It may not be very much for a large party to pay, but presumably it will be the same for the registration of any name, and it may be a considerable burden for a small party or an independent candidate wishing to represent a particular point of view.
This raises a serious issue of principle. The principle which the Government are introducing will lead to a considerable extension of the power of the party machine—I say that advisedly, as a Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party—by converting the Parliamentary dog licence into statutory form. A licence which can only be issued by the party headquarters greatly increases the power of the central organisation over the selection of candidates for Parliamentary elections.
It may be that this is what the Government want. They are having their difficulties, for instance, in Pembroke. We have had ours in the Conservative Party. We understand these things, and sympathise perhaps with the Government in some ways. Nevertheless, a serious extension of the power of the political machines at the centre would be brought about by the introduction of statutory licences to

stand for Parliament backed up by the force of law.

Mr. Coe: Do we understand that the Conservative Party would be against the registration of political parties? If so, how would it give effect to the views of the hon. Gentleman about wishing help to be given to local electors?

Mr. Sharples: I am coming to that, but I am against the idea of registration of political parties.
The whole philosophy of the Conservative Party on the question of selection of candidates depends upon the autonomy of the individual Conservative associations in the constituencies, and we feel very strongly about it. I make it clear that we cannot accept the proposal now put forward. First, it is too complex, secondly, too rigid, and, thirdly, concentrates too much power at the centre. We are prepared to consider a less rigid scheme, but feel strongly that any scheme must be equally applicable to local government elections. It is no good introducing a scheme of this kind unless it can apply to both types of election.
We believe that it is up to the candidate in the first instance to make himself known in his constituency. If he cannot manage it, then he should get out and make room for someone who can. If it is felt that electors need some kind of help when going to the polling station, I cannot see why a simple amendment of the law should not be made to allow a poster to be displayed in the polling station indicating the name of a candidate and the party which he purports to represent.
Only a simple amendment to the law would be required to do this. It would be quite easy to specify the maximum size of the poster and the maximum number of words, in addition to the candidate's name, which it could contain. This would not involve any question of discretion on the part of the returning officer or of the polling clerk. They would merely have to ensure that the poster was of the statutory size and did not exceed the statutory number of words.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: Who would be responsible for printing such a poster? What would be the consequences, and on whom would they fall, if there were any error? Who would take


responsibility for production of such a document?

Mr. Sharples: The situation would be the same as for any other election literature. The responsibility would fall upon the candidate and his party's election agent. I cannot see any difficulty there. There is no need for the elaborate proposal in the Bill—a proposal so elaborate that it could not be applied to local government elections.

Mr. Lubbock: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a difficulty about his own proposal? There is nothing, in the scheme he suggests, to stop someone from mischievously going to Sutton and Cheam, having a poster printed saying that he is a Conservative, and getting it exhibited in the polling stations, thereby confusing the local electorate.

Mr. Sharples: There is nothing to stop a person from confusing them now like that. A person might put up posters all over my constituency saying that he is a Conservative representative, but if one has taken the trouble to look after one's constituency and to get oneself known, as one should, such action will not have the slightest effect.

Mr. William Hamling: Is the hon. Gentleman's purpose to allow the Conservative Party to carry on with its farce of having so-called "independent" candidates in rural districts?

Mr. Sharples: I do not think that that intervention deserves a serious reply.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Will my hon. Friend cap his admirable proposal for Parliamentary elections by saying that he hopes the Conservative Party will have nothing to do with the Government's proposal and will not register?

Mr. Sharples: I have made the position clear in relation to the Government's proposal. I was heartened, however, by the fact that the Home Secretary said that he was prepared to consider alternative schemes and that his mind was not entirely closed on the matter. We shall be able to discuss these proposals in Committee, but I thought that it would be helpful if I gave notice of the kind of ideas we have in mind so that there will

be time for him and his advisers to consider them before we go into Committee on the Bill.
I want now to turn from the question of party labels to a much more controversial subject—Clause 15, which abolishes the non-resident qualifications of voting at local government elections and property qualification for election to a local authority. These matters were not considered in detail in any way by the right hon. Gentleman's Advisory Council. Since they have been published, the Government's proposals have been almost universally condemned. On 7th November, the Under-Secretary of State, replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), admitted that the proposals were opposed by most local authorities.

Mr. Hamling: Mostly Tories.

Mr. Sharples: I leave aside party issues for the moment.
The Home Secretary himself confirmed the opposition of the local authorities. Today, I received strong representations from the C.B.I. on the matter. The Government's proposal means that a very large proportion of those who have given service on local authorities for many years will not be able to stand again for areas they now represent. For example, 24 councillors in Birmingham, 18 in Manchester, 14 in Nottingham and 12 in Glasgow will be excluded from standing again. The same sort of situation will apply throughout the country, both in small and large boroughs. On 13th November, The Times said:
The resident sixth-former is given his say, and the non-resident employer is deprived of his. Hardly a good bargain for responsible local self-government.

Mr. Dan Jones: I appreciate the point of view the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but surely he is aware that the solution is simple. All they have to do is to move into their constituencies.

Mr. Sharples: The areas mostly affected are the commercial and industrial areas of the large cities. This is one reason—a good one—why the Home Secretary is unable to extend the proposal to the City of London. Of course, I know that the majority of those affected are Conservative councillors, but not all. Do not the Government recognise the


madness—and I say "madness" advisedly—of forcing out of local government a large proportion of people who have had local government experience, and this just at a time when the whole structure of local government is about to be reorganised?

Mr. Tony Gardner: In view of trends in elections over the last two or three years, it is hardly likely that the people who are now making representations to the hon. Gentleman have spent very long in local government.

Mr. Sharples: Many have, but it applies equally whether they have spent a long time or a short time.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Would not my hon. Friend agree that many people have been in local government for many years without being in control of the local council? Does not that dispose of what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has just said? Secondly, would not my hon. Friend recognise that in places like Birmingham it is possible to live near to a ward and yet still be outside the city limits, nearer to it than to a ward which is right on the other side of the city?

Mr. Sharples: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Surely it is right that people who have interests and businesses in a city should be able to have a say about how the rates they pay are raised and spent. For instance, higher education cuts right across local boundaries, but it must be in the interests of commercial people in an area to have a say about the direction of higher education.
This proposal arises from a minor reference by a representative of the Socialist Party to what he thought there might be in the way of abuses of the property qualification. So far as I know, no evidence was given to the Home Secretary's Advisory Council of concrete cases of abuses. There was simply the suggestion that there might be abuses about which, apparently, nobody had heard.
If the Government genuinely believe that there is some unfairness in the business vote, why do they not accept the recommendation of the Maud Committee, which went into this business in

considerable detail, not to narrow the franchise and the qualification, but to enlarge the franchise? In paragraph 424 of its Report, the Committee said:
Our conclusions are that:—

(a)the present legislation makes it difficult for certain people to stand for election and may be the cause of their resorting to arrangements to enable them to satisfy the requirements of the law;
(b)mobility of people increases; many may have just as much interest in the area in which they work as in the area in which they live and this should be recognised;
(c)the effect of the law is to exclude some people who might be valuable candidates for election to local authorities, particularly in urban areas."

The Maud Committee went on to say:
We recommend that there be additional alternative qualification for election to a local authority, namely that the person should have had a principal place of work within the area of the authority during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election.
I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman did not accept that recommendation, which extends the franchise, instead of trying to force out of local government a number of people who have done good work in it for many years. Surely we do not have a surplus of good people who understand local authority work, and I say that without reference to any party or sectional interest.
If the Government feel that there may have been some abuses of the business qualification and the property qualification, why should they not accept the Maud Committee's recommendation and bring the qualification of property and business into line with the ownership of property, so that people who have been in business, or in work, or who have owned property, in the area for the previous 12 months could be included? This would have the effect of considerably widening the number of people able to take part in local elections and, what is more important, of considerably widening the number of people able to stand for election to a local authority.

Mr. Callaghan: Of course, I considered that proposition. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the business vote, but, as he pointed out, the Maud Committee referred to just that and a principal place of work. Would he tell us what effect he thinks that this would have on some local authority areas where


the number with the qualification of a principal place of work might swamp, or at any rate substantially affect, the result of an election? I can think of examples; I hope that the hon. Gentleman has thought of them, too.

Mr. Sharples: This is something which we have considered. We think that it would be right to accept the recommendations of the Maud Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: What, just like that?

Mr. Sharples: This is something which we would want to consider, but in principle we would be prepared to accept the recommendation of the Maud Committee which, by extending the opportunity of voting, would be far more satisfactory than the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, which is designed simply to restrict people and to drive certain people out of local government.

Mr. English: I am sorry to interrupt a second time, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that he has made a very important statement. Before my right hon. Friend intervened, the hon. Gentleman used the expression "business vote" and has just again referred to extending voting, while on other occasions he has used the word "qualification". Is he suggesting that the vote should be extended to all people who work in an area? That would have a vast effect on places like the City of London, but it might be acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the House, although I do not know. Or was the hon. Gentleman relating it purely to qualification? He has used both terms and it is important that he should make it clear what principle he is accepting.

Mr. Sharples: These are matters which we can better discuss in Committee. I have attempted to make our position clear. If there is to be a change of any kind, we want an extension of voting and an extension of the power to stand as candidate. How we go about that in detail can be discussed in Committee.
In broad principle we accept the line advocated in the Maud Committee's Report. The House can only draw the conclusion that the proposals in Clause 15 have been conceived in spite, that they are the direct result of the last local governmental elections, which were a disaster

for the Labour Party. I give notice that we look upon the Clause as a piece of political gerrymandering, and we shall put this right when we are returned to office.
The other major question in the Bill is that of votes at 18. This is a major constitutional reform, which, as we said at the time of the last debate, should be decided by a free vote. I gave an undertaking on behalf of this side of the House that there would be a free vote on this issue. The House and country will be disappointed that the Government have not had the courage to take the same action. People will be disappointed by the indication given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that the Whips would be on for his party.
When we last debated this matter the House listened with great attention and respect to the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), when he spoke with deep conviction against this proposal. The House will also want to take careful note of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, namely, that the voting age should be reduced to 20. Speaking entirely for myself, I take a different view, although I realise that in doing so I do not have the advantage of the evidence presented to Mr. Speaker's Conference. I base my view on the recommendations of the Latey Committee which have been, broadly speaking, accepted by the House. Having accepted those recommendations in respect of other matters, it is logical that this principle should be extended to the question of voting. We will most probably have a very full debate about this in Committee and it is best to leave the detailed arguments until then.
The Bill is a mixed bag. It implements many of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference and the Home Office Advisory Council, together with recommendations which we on this side feel are desirable and will help with the progress of elections generally. On the other hand, it introduces some very controversial issues, to which I have referred. I am glad that we are to have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, because it will enable everyone to have an opportunity of speaking and of registering their opinions, by their votes, on each section of the Bill.


Therefore, although I have grave reservations about certain parts of the Bill, I would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to divide the House against it tonight.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I share the satisfaction expressed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) that we are to have the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, because there are many constitutional matters which it is right should be discussed here. I also share the view of the hon. Gentleman on one other matter, and that was in the doubt that he cast upon the need for extending polling hours to 10 o'clock. I can only speak from my own experience in London and it may be that there are others with experience in other parts of the country, perhaps in country districts, with different views, but I know, from a long experience in London, that to extend the hours to 10 o'clock will not bring in any more votes.
It will be a substantial burden on the returning officers, and the very large number of party workers involved. I hope that before we proceed further with this we will have the views of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or other hon. Members who maybe have different experiences, as to why it is necessary to extend the hours. At the moment, I do not have sufficient evidence to come to a similar conclusion.
There are two matters upon which I want to comment tonight. There will be plenty of opportunity in Committee to deal with the other matters, many of which we have considered previously at Mr. Speaker's Conference. My first point deals with the proposal that the political label of each member should be published, with his name, on the ballot paper. Mr. Speaker's Conference did not recommend this. I do not know whether it might have recommended this after the Greater London Council elections, because many of us became convinced then that some such change in our electoral system was desirable.
I warmly endorse the Government's proposal that this change should take place. Of the two decisions which each voter has to make at a general election

—the decision between the record, policy and leadership of the political parties, and which he considers would best govern the country during the next five years, and the decision as to which individual will best represent his interests in Parliament—there can be no doubt that the first decision is by far the most important.
This importance of the political vote as against the individual vote has grown immensely during the past 30 years, partly because the functions of government have increased so much during that period that nowadays they affect the welfare of the public proportionately so much more than any individual Member of Parliament can ever influence the welfare of his constituents, and partly because radio and television have brought party politics and national affairs into the home. All of this has resulted in a comparative shrinkage in the personal appeal of individual candidates, however distinguished they may be.
Many people regret this, considering it to be deplorable, but it is a fact of life which we have to recognise. I welcome it as a healthy appreciation by the electorate of the realities of our political democracy. Evidence of this change can be seen in the fact that nowadays relatively few independent Members are elected to the House and that the political swing is usually constant over large regions of the country, irrespective of the record, character or ability of local candidates.
We should have enacted this proposed legislation before, and maybe would have done if it were not for the fact that we who live in this intensely political atmosphere are apt to overrate the political knowledge of our constituents, and the extent to which we or our party colours are known to them. When the Greater London Council election voting figures were known, it seemed to me that the case for doing this at local government elections was overwhelming. I want to tell the House what happened in my constituency at Lambeth. There were 18 candidates, of whom four had to be elected. We had four candidates, none of whom was more popular than the other, yet the vote varied between them by 1,250. The man who got the most votes was highest in the list, but was certainly not as well known as the others. That result


was plainly because the electorate was not aware of the situation, in spite of the intensive efforts made by the election agents and the organisers to associate the names with the party to which they belonged. Therefore, I agree completely with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and urge that, if it is possible—and I realise that there are severe technical difficulties—a candidate's name and his party label should appear on the ballot paper in all local elections.
I turn now to the question of the voting age, on which I have already expressed a strong opinion, but about which little has been said today. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss it later. I very much regret the suggestion that the Whips will be on for this controversial issue. I think that the Home Secretary must regret it, because he expressed the view that this was a matter which individual Members should decide. I do not know whether he questions that.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that they will so decide. The real question is whether the Government intend to give any advice to their followers. They do, and they will.

Mr. Strauss: When I asked my right hon. Friend, on 24th July, whether there would be a free vote, he said that he could not give a reply—and, of course, he could not do so at that time—but he went on to say:
I would express the view that it is basically a matter about which hon. Members themselves will have to make up their own minds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1968; Vol. 769. c. 579.]
Surely that meant that they would be able to make up their minds without the pressure of the party Whips upon them. The view that there should be a free vote is held very strongly by many hon. Members who support the reduction of the voting age to 18, as they consider it to be a constitutional issue on which hon. Members should be allowed to come to a conclusion without any Government pressure being put upon them.
I wish to make a brief comment on one or two of the arguments put forward on the last occasion that we discussed this matter in the House, in favour of reducing the voting age to 18, because

there was no opportunity then—I spoke early in the debate—to answer them. Some of them should be answered. The first was that it was illogical that, if in a number of civil matters, as suggested by the Latey Committee, the effective age should be 18, it should not be 18 in matters affecting Parliament and votes. I appreciate the desire for consistency, and if I thought that it was an evenly balanced case, and that the argument for or against the age of 18 was a nice one on which one might come down on one side or the other, I would go for uniformity, too. However for those of us who think that 18 is too young, and that it would be damaging to our democratic and electoral system to reduce the age to 18, there is no virtue in consistency. We have to do what we think is right.
Two separate bodies considered the age of majority. The Latey Committee said that when it came to the question of permission to marry without parental consent and holding property 18 should be the age. It went on to state very clearly and definitely that that did not mean that in civic matters and voting matters 18 should be the age.

Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend, with his integrity would not wish to mislead the House. This is not a matter of formal logic. Nobody argued that, because of formal logic, we must, after the Latey Committee's Report, follow through with a reduction in the voting age. The substance of the case was argued, namely, that if people are, by law, to be entitled to make these very important decisions in the matter of, contracts, for instance, they are also entitled to be trusted when it comes to taking part in our political life.

Mr. Strauss: That is my hon. Friend's view and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It was not the view of the Latey Committee, which said that it did not accept that the civic field and the private field either would or should necessarily go together. That is all that I am saying.

Mr. Lubbock: Should not the right hon. Gentleman point out that the Latey Committee was specifically enjoined not to consider the voting age? Therefore,


nothing which it said on this subject is of any interest to us.

Mr. Strauss: It is all the more remarkable that the Latey Committee went out of its way to comment on this matter and issue a warning. I speak for the majority of members of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was with the warning of the Latey Committee in mind that we decided, on balance, for what appeared to us to be overwhelming reasons, that 18 was too young for the voting age. It is not illogical for the second body to come to a different conclusion from the first body because it was considering entirely different aspects of the problem.
If it comes to logicality, is it logical to argue that, because in future boys and girls of 18 will be allowed to marry without parental consent, it follows that they should vote at that age? There does not seem to be any logic in that. They are two entirely different matters.
Another argument advanced was that most young people, if they have the vote at 18, will not be able to exercise it until they are 20 or more because we have elections only every four or five years. That is an irrelevant argument. The only question which the House should consider is this: when an election occurs, is it in the interests of the body politic that adolescents aged 18, with such maturity and experience of public affairs as they have been able to develop at that age, should vote in an election and influence perhaps its outcome? It is not a question of the age at which they are likely to vote first. When an election is held, will they be mature enough to be able to exercise a reasonable judgment on the merits of the parties and their policies?

Mr. Mendelson: How can my right hon. Friend completely dismiss the case about those sectors of the electorate who are well above the minimum voting age when he knows very well that even those who wish to reduce the voting age to 20 only were very much influenced by the argument that people had to be 22, 23 or 24 and not 21 before they had the first chance to vote? My right hon. Friend cannot accept it for that half of the argument and reject it for the other half.

Mr. Strauss: That did not influence me in the slightest, and I do not think that it influenced anybody else. It was purely the question of maturity when an election is held. That was the only argument which we had in mind. Although a person may be 22 or 23 by the time that he votes in a General Election, the probability is that he will exercise his vote in a local government election at a much earlier date.
It was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others that young people now mature mentally much earlier. Everybody knows that that is true about their physical development. There is no evidence whatsoever that their earlier physical development is accompanied by earlier mental development. The majority and minority Reports of the Latey Committee dealt with this matter. In the majority Report it was said that the B.M.A., the only body which gave evidence on this matter, was noncommittal on this point, but it went on to say—and I must, in fairness, quote this—that probably from the psychological point of view the adolescent of today matures earlier than the adolescent of previous generations. No one suggested that they mature so much earlier that we are entitled to reduce the age from 21 to 18.
I have spoken, as many others have done, to university teachers and others who, from long experience, definitely take the different view that there is no earlier mental maturity nowadays than there was some years ago.

Mr. Dan Jones: What is magical about the age of 21?

Mr. Strauss: For reasons which I will develop in Committee, I will tell my hon. Friend and other hon. Members why we consider 21 too old and 20 a more appropriate age. Of course, there is nothing magical about the age of 21. So much for the point of view of maturity. I will, however, say this to my hon. Friend. The fact that the very non-committal statement of the B.M.A. appeared to suggest possible earlier maturity was one of the reasons why Mr. Speaker's Conference suggested a reduction in the age from 21 to 20.
I hope that I will not be accused of repeating an argument which I have put before, but I will do it briefly. I put it


again because I was criticised by some of my hon. Friends when I used it before. It was said by a number of hon. Members that if people were allowed to vote at the age of 18 that would inject a measure of idealism into our political affairs. I suggest to the House that idealism untempered by experience and knowledge—in short, maturity—can be a dangerous thing. It can easily be en-flamed by demagogic appeals and lead to activities which mature people would deplore. This has certainly happened in other countries in Europe in a vicious way. I do not say that it will—but it could—happen here. Idealism alone is not enough.
In deciding whether people are fit to vote at elections, it is not idealism that counts. Ripeness is all. Sufficient ripeness of age is all-important. I was attacked on an earlier occasion for making the point that we have evidence already of where the idealism of many of our young people is going. I do not doubt that it is idealism. In Scotland and Wales, their idealism is going wholeheartedly in support of extreme nationalist movements. I do not question their idealism, but that is where it is going.
It was also surprising and alarming to find that the idealism of much too high a proportion of our youth is being attracted by the racialist doctrines of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Mendelson: This is a serious matter. I did not realise that my right hon. Friend would introduce that point. It is a most serious allegation to make without evidence. There are very many people in public life and who work for local authorities in looking after young people who say again and again, at conferences and in reports, that it is precisely among the younger generation that there is more tolerance and understanding and a better growing up together than among the medium-age group.

Mr. Strauss: That is what one would hope and expect. I do not want to repeat my last speech. I ask my hon. Friend to look at it and consider the reason which I then advanced as a result of public opinion polls to show that support for the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was held far more strongly and by greater

numbers among the 16–20 age group than in any other age group. That is a fact. It was on those public opinion polls that I made this statement, deplore it as one will.
I would like to remind the House that from the figures which have been given us by the Home Office—the figures have varied three times since I served on Mr. Speaker's Conference, but one assumes that the present figures are correct—the number of new electors aged between 18 and 21 to come on to the electoral roll as a result of the proposed change will be 3 million. A simple arithmetical calculation shows that that represents an average of 4,800 per constituency. I hope that when we consider this matter in Committee every right hon. and hon. Member will ponder this huge accretion of adolescent voters to his electoral register and the consequential distortion that is likely to take place in the national and local election campaigns and the unhappy consequences that may result.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Like the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I am a London Member. I begin by sharing at least the right hon. Gentleman's experience that in London, at any rate, there would be far more disadvantages in extending the hour of polling to 10 p.m. than in leaving the position as it is. I do not believe that, with all the facilities which exist for postal voting, and with the polling stations open for 14 hours, it is necessary to keep them open for a further hour at that time of night. I do not attach a great weight to this—the real argument against it is that of strain on the staff—none the less, in some areas this change would risk a certain measure of rowdiness outside the polling stations at that sort of hour, which, I am sure the House would agree, is wholly undesirable. I hope, therefore, that in Committee the Home Secretary will be prepared to think hard about this again.
I want to say something about votes at 18, to which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall devoted a large part of his speech. The Government's handling of this matter has been odd in the extreme. I regard it as very wrong—and here again I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—to put the Whip on on this issue. The


Home Secretary was a little ingenuous when he said that any Government could give advice. Of course they can. The Home Secretary can give it from the Dispatch Box. The only reason why he wishes to reinforce that advice with that given from another quarter is his fear, I take it, that the advice given from the Dispatch Box may not be sufficiently compelling.
Let the Home Secretary take courage. Let him have a little more confidence in his own persuasive powers. In all seriousness, this is a matter on which parties are divided and which is, in the true basic sense, a constitutional matter on which it is very wrong for any Government—I would say the same of my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip had he taken the same line—to apply the Whip.

Mr. Mendelson: I am very touched by the keen interest of prominent Members of the Opposition to protect the freedom of voting on this side. When, however, we had the vote on a six-line Whip on whether we should apply to enter the Common Market, which surely was the constitutional proposal overriding all other constitutional proposals and against which the present proposals are modest to a degree, we had no such speeches from hon. Members opposite. They wanted us to be ridden through by a six-line Whip, never mind the freedom of back-benchers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member thinks that I wish to assume the rôle of permanent supervisor of the Patronage Secretary, he makes a mistake.

Mr. Mendelson: Occasionally.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Although it is irrelevant to this issue, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member about what he has said on that point of substance. I would have said, with him, that that was also the sort of issue on which it might well have been thought reasonable and right to allow a free vote. The hon. Member cannot, however, hold this against me because I did not speak in that debate and, therefore, he does not know what I would have said. I see you looking at me with some disapproval, however, Mr

Speaker, and I will return with celerity to the question of votes at 18.
The Government's attitude is extraordinary. The Speaker's Conference apparently accepted the age of 20. That proposal was carried overwhelmingly. Having said that, I would say that my own view is very much the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies). I think the time has come to make this change. I was not a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference and, therefore, I do not know the arguments in favour of the age of 20. I am bound to say that I cannot find any. It seems to be an age in respect of which there is no better argument for changing the law than for allowing it to remain as it is, with the vote at 21.
But there are arguments for reducing the age to 18. First, if this country's policy leads it to war, young men of 18 are conscripted to serve—and many do serve without such conscription. One remembers the notice put up in a public house frequented by the Royal Air Force in Lincolnshire in the last war, to the effect that group captains under the age of 21 years would not be served with liquor unless accompanied by their adjutants. The generation to which I have just referred played a big part in the war. The Latey Report was not allowed to, and so did not, make any recommendation on this point, but there is a sound argument for saying that if young men or girls of 18 are to be treated for serious civil purposes as mature people—as being able to own property and contract marriage—it is some indication that they are also ripe for the responsibility of exercising the franchise.
That is not to say that all of them will exercise the franchise sensibly. But that is true of any other age group. Many hon. Members may have reason for self-congratulation at that fact; I do not know. We do not seek to exclude people in older age groups because in our view they are unfitted to vote, and I see no reason why we should exclude persons of 18 years of age as a category on those grounds.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that for many years the age of 18 has been the one at which a young person has been treated as fully mature for National Insurance purposes, and it is also of historical interest that the heir to


the Throne can succeed without a Regency resulting if he is 18 on the demise of the sovereign. It was that fact which enabled Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, to succeed without a Regent when she was only a few months over the age of 18. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will recall that Her present Majesty has also had the advantage of advisers of great ability and charm. I express that in the past tense.
There is a deeper reason for reducing the age to 18, which was touched upon by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. There is a great deal of unrest and confusion among many of the more intelligent members of this generation, and there is undoubtedly a feeling of frustration. The acceptance of this proposal would not cure it, but it would reduce the causes of frustration. If an intelligent young person thinks that he or she knows how the country should be run—and at that age most of us thought precisely that; it was only as the years passed that doubts began to creep into our minds—it is frustrating to know that he or she can do nothing except demonstrate in the streets.
If these young people know that they have the same rights as older people to influence the way in which the country is governed, through the ballot box, it may have the effect of giving them an added sense of responsibility. It is not a cure-all, but it has a certain advantage in this direction, and it is for that and the other reasons which I have mentioned that I shall support this proposal in Committee.
I am extremely sceptical about the provision concerning political descriptions on ballot papers. As has already been pointed out, it will strengthen the already growing power of the party organisations. What will happen if at an election more than one candidate claims a certain political designation? This can happen when a Member falls out with the constituency association of his own party but nevertheless decides to stand at the next election. That situation may well arise in Pembroke.
I do not see why a Member or candidate so placed should be denied the right

to call himself whatever political animal he wishes. Yet presumably two people will not be allowed to describe themselves on the same ballot paper as Labour or Conservative, or any other party. I do not wholly understand the rather elaborate phraseology of the Clause, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will endeavour to clear up this point. At the moment it seems likely to operate very harshly in exceptional cases.
If the Home Secretary is right in saying that the voter is entitled to know the political colour of the names on the ballot paper, why on earth is he not providing for it in local government? In local government elections the voter is presented with a sheet which sometimes has as many as 18 names on it. It is far more difficult to know the political colour of all those 18 names than is the case with the three or four, at the most, at Parliamentary elections. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has produced such confusion in trying to deal with Parliamentary elections that he hesitates to make such a proposal in respect of local government elections. [Interruption.] That is a fair, if unfriendly, paraphrase of his observatons. If he is right in saying that the voter has such a right, it is up to him, as Home Secretary, to devise the means. I am doubtful about the whole proposal. I do not want to see an increase in the power of the party machines, and this proposal will, in some measure, work in that way.
Why has the opportunity not been taken to extend the facilities for postal votes in respect of voters on holiday? In these days holidays are a very important part of people's lives, and it is asking a great deal of them to return to vote, even at a crucial election, especially when a person is allowed to vote by post if he is prepared to say that he is away on business. I agree that there is a greater administrative problem involved in allowing anyone genuinely on holiday to be able to vote by post, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with that point.
Clause 8(1)(b) does not go far enough in dealing with the question of local government election expenses. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the situation in London, where, at the next move, Greater London Council


elections will be undertaken on the basis of one candidate per Parliamentary constituency? That poses a case for expenses comparable with those allowed in respect of Parliamentary elections for the constituencies concerned. If organisations similar to the Greater London Council are set up in other parts of the country—and this may well be one of the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations—a similar situation may arise in the provinces.
By far the worst part of the Bill is Clause 15, dealing with the non-resident qualification for voting and for being elected. The right hon. Gentleman did not do himself justice when he said that this will cause some trouble but that it may well be alleviated by the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations. If he thinks that, need we have such changes now? Why does he not leave this alone now and wait and see the situation which will arise when these recommendations have been made, accepted and enacted? Why is he doing this in the teeth of the expressed views of local authorities?
My hon. Friend referred to the Question which I addressed to the Minister of State at the Home Office a few days ago, when I asked him what had been the reactions to the proposals circulated to certain local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said:
We have written to the local authority associations on proposals to abolish the non-resident qualification for electors and, in England and Wales, the qualification for candidates based on property.
When I asked him what response he had had, he said:
Most of the local authority associations which replied were against them. Scotland is in rather a different position. But, in the end, it is up to the Government to decide what to do, and what we have decided is in the Bill. "—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 7th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 1066–7.]
I remind him that in the end it is not what the Government decide, but what the House of Commons decides.
What is the use of consulting people if one has no intention of considering their views? Why put the local authorities to the inconvenience of consultations undertaken at very short notice if, when their replies come in against one's proposals, they are disregarded and one sails forth with legislation?
Nor do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to understand fully the unfairness of what they are proposing as it affects the vote. There are people in my own borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, for example, who play a great part in the life of the town and yet live outside it. They pay heavy rates. There seems to be no reason why they should not exercise a vote in the town to which they have given such great service. When one looks at the principle, here is an outstanding case of taxation without representation. I need not remind the House that it was the adherence of a previous Government to that view which lost us the American Colonies.
Far more important is the abolition of the property qualification for election to local authorities. Surely the problem in local government today is to get enough people of the quality required for the very responsible unpaid work involved. It seems madness deliberately to prevent competent people from serving. An hon. Member opposite interjected earlier, "But would not people on a housing estate prefer to be represented by a resident?" Very well. Let them exercise their vote in favour of a candidate who is a resident. But why deny to others the chance to come forward as candidates and serve if, and only if, the electors decide to vote for them?

Mr. Hamling: What the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind also is that, even though electors on a housing estate may wish to vote only for someone who lives on the estate, he is in favour of other people outside interfering in that election and voting in it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are two points, of course, and I am now on the second of them, and there may be separate amendments on them. As for the first, the hon. Gentleman knows that the non-resident vote is comparatively limited in size and unlikely to have any such decisive effect. However, I am on a different point, which is that of denying to individuals whom, ex-hypothesi, the electors want as their representatives, the right to be their representatives simply because they do not live in the town concerned.
It is no use saying, "They are all the Tories". It is true that the Home Secretary had some difficulty in finding a


local authority which was not controlled by members of my party when he undertook his consultations, but that is not my fault. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman is more responsible for that than anyone else. However, it is not only one party which would be affected by the proposal. It is not only my own party, which in Camden alone would lose four effective committee chairmen by it. Why deprive a local authority of four competent men for this reason?
I have looked up in "Who's Who?" the particulars of that very distinguished gentleman who leads the Labour Party on the Greater London Council, Sir Reginald Goodwin. He may have other homes, but the only address that he gives in "Who's Who?" is at Pulborough, in Sussex. In my view, that does not make him any less competent to perform his duties at County Hall, but, unless he has taken the precaution of securing another address, he will be disqualified from serving on the Greater London Council as the act of this Government. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think that this is simply a party matter.
The issue is simple: do we want the best available men to run our local authorities? If we do, do not let us introduce this piffling restriction.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak. Mr. English.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: Mr. Speaker, having sat through the debate on the White Paper without succeeding in being called, I am grateful to you for calling me today.
At the outset, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will understand if I am in much the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) in discussing the Bill. If one has to do it briefly, one cannot refer to all the points in it of which one approves. If I am critical of parts of the Bill and refer to matters that are not in it, I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise, none the less, that I am very much in support of it.
I agree especially with the principle of votes at 18. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) ably stated the case for this. There are problems in any extension of the franchise, but this is a far smaller percentage extension that those carried out successfully in the nineteenth century by a House based on a much more restricted franchise and with much more to fear from the possible results of adding millions to the electoral roll.
If war broke out, we would promptly call up our 18 year olds and expect them to serve in the Armed Forces. If that is the case, surely they have some right to choose the Government which may call upon them to serve?

Sir D. Glover: What about women?

Mr. English: My sister was called up in the last war and is one of the few people who have been both a sergeant major and an adjutant. Women are called up these days.
There are some points in the Bill which I query. I cannot see why, in Clause 23, my right hon. Friend wishes to retain the archaic provisions of the constitution of the City of London. My right hon. Friend probably is quite familiar with the fact that the only reason why the City of London is as it is now is because the House of Lords in the 19th century did not want the prestige title and job of Lord Mayor to go to what was the London County Council, then being created. The chairman of it was not allowed to be Lord Mayor and, therefore, the City of London was excepted from the London County Council area. The G.L.C. set-up is slightly different, but in this one part of the country we still have an authority which is elected on a most peculiar basis, to say the least of it.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam say that he would be prepared to consider the possibility of a franchise based on place of work.

Mr. Hamling: I bet he would not.

Mr. English: I share my hon. Friend's view, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned voting as well as qualification on this basis and, when I asked which he meant, he refused to say. I suspect that he was


not quite sure which he meant, but he said both, and it is a matter which should be cleared up by the Opposition Front Bench before this debate ends.
If, for various reasons, we do not wish to say that the City of London should have a resident franchise, which would be rather silly with only 5,000 people living there, the possibility of a franchise which did not deprive the business electors of their votes but said also that the half-million people who suffer from the problems of rush-hour traffic in travelling to and from the City is one which should be considered. They should have a right to some say about their future—they spend a third of their working lives in the area.
I cannot understand why, in Clause 16—perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will explain this—we say that a candidate must be qualified at the date of nomination. If a person is of the right age at the time he takes up his duties as a councillor or hon. Member of this House, that should be sufficient. The Americans go further and say that a President can be elected as long as he qualifies at any time during the four years he is in power. I do not suggest that solution, but I do suggest that it is sufficient for someone to become qualified in age to sit by the period for which he was elected. I suspect that we are faced with a bit of drafting over-simplification here to which I will address myself in Committee.
I am particularly unhappy about the method by which the Bill was prepared and the results of it. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that certain facets of the problem should be sent to a Speaker's Conference. I hope—in saying this I am not in any way directing my remarks against you, Mr. Speaker—that that will not be done. You gave a great deal of time over three years, as did other hon. Members during your Speaker's Conference, to investigating this matter. You are always bound by precedent, as the members of your Conference were. The first Speaker's Conference for this sort of purpose was held at a time when it was not customary publicly to report Committee proceedings. Because of that, the precedent arose and it has continued.

Surely we are now in a different age and should consider the matter differently.

Sir D. Glover: As the hon. Gentleman is implying that Mr. Speaker was bound by precedent, I hasten to release Mr. Speaker from that position. We at Mr. Speaker's Conference took a vote about the proceedings. We could have voted the opposite way and said that our proceedings should be published.

Mr. English: I imagine that members of the Conference were influenced by the fact that such proceedings had never been published in the past.

Mr. Hogg: One does not know.

Mr. English: Exactly. Although the conclusions of the Conference are published, the very vote to which the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) referred was not, I think, published because the minutes were not published. It is, I believe, true that the minutes of Mr. Speaker's Conference held before the first war on the issue of the House of Lords have never been published, unless they were published very recently. One could say that the hon. Member for Ormskirk has committed a technical breach of privilege by revealing one of the unpublished proceedings of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
Presumably many people and bodies gave evidence to this conference. Two right hon. Gentlemen only moments ago offered differing views on the question of votes at 18. Presumably—as I think they were both members of Mr. Speaker's Conference—they heard all the evidence presented to that conference. We are not entitled to be made aware of that evidence and we therefore cannot be aware of the reasons for their holding different views on this subject.
We have been told that many people in the country have made suggestions about, for example, polling hours. Presumably the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam who spoke about this at some length has contacted many of these people, bodies and political organisations to gain their views or asked the Conservative Central Office to do it for him. Since all these bodies went to so much trouble to give their views, based on experience and knowledge, why, while their opinions may differ, cannot then-evidence be published so that the country can consider the pros and cons of


these details? I doubt if agreement would have been reached on many issues if the entire proceedings of the conference were to be published, but I see no reason why the evidence submitted to the conference should not be made available for us all to see, as well as possibly the nature of the voting.
My right hon. Friend seems to be bound by a similar piece of archaism. Presumably many bodies submitted evidence to his Electoral Advisory Committee, including local authorities, local government officers, political parties, and staff of the Home Office and Scottish Office, all of whom are represented upon it. Nowhere do we have a record of the evidence on which their suggestions were based. In some cases it seems that some of the suggestions do not inspire confidence. I said, "Thank heaven for Cabinet Government" when I first considered the matter. It does not, based on the absence of evidence from Mr. Speaker's Conference, inspire confidence in one when one learns that the conference reported, "We do not mind lowering the voting age to an age which nobody has yet suggested, but we do not like the age of 18."
It does not inspire confidence if it is suggested, for the first time in English history, that one cannot publish before a conclusion is reached some of the opinions which have been given about the result of an election—which frankly is what the recommendation to prohibit Gallup polls would mean. Upon hearing about this I again said, "Thank heaven for Cabinet Government", because with respect perhaps that form of Government is more responsible than a conference of the type about which I have spoken, remembering that in these two instances it, in my view, reached the wrong conclusions.
The real objection I have to the system—in this respect my right hon. Friend was somewhat complacent in his speech—is that nothing new has come out of it. For about two hours today we have discussed the details of the Bill, but all the principles on which the Measure is based are merely extensions of principles that started to be passed by this House in 1832 and were first suggested to the House in the eighteenth century. Slowly the franchise was extended. Slowly property qualifications have disappeared—I

am surprised that no hon. Member has mentioned that property qualifications for voters are at last making their final appearance in this country—

Mr. Lubbock: What about Northern Ireland, though?

Mr. English: I deliberately referred earlier to "English history". I gather that property qualifications disappeared in Scottish history at a much earlier date. Being half Scots and half Irish, I am referring to English history as a compromise. We have done less, as a percentage in terms of extending the franchise—and certainly far less in terms of changing the principle—than was done in the 1920s when women were admitted to the franchise and in the nineteenth century when working-class men as well as middle-class men were admitted to it.
The case against party labels on ballot papers was rested by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam on the fact that the central party organisation would become stronger, and that was a valid argument to adduce, although I do not believe that the appearance of a name on a ballot paper will necessarily result in that happening. In any event, we are arguing about a question of machinery about how a name makes it appearance. The hon. Gentleman suggested that instead of appearing on a ballot paper the name should appear on another paper in the premises, which is a small distinction.
I wish to suggest a different piece of machinery whereby an answer could be found to the hon. Gentleman's main point. I refer to the American practice of holding primary elections. It is often said that we cannot have primary elections under the British system of Government, because we do not have a fixed term in the House of Commons. That may well be the case with our Members, but in America it is very rare indeed that a sitting Member of Congress is unseated at a primary election. Therefore, can we not ignore that argument and say that a voter might, if he desired, but not otherwise, put on the register the fact that he wants to vote in a primary election for a new Labour candidate, a new Conservative candidate, or a new candidate from such other party as he may desire? He would


then have some choice himself in deciding who was to represent him. In many cases, this would be the most hotly contested election for 20 or 30 years, in the case of a safe seat. In a marginal seat one could say that to some extent the voter might be influenced by a candidate's views or might even just not like his face.
In a safe seat we all know that in practice there are virtually no possible persons who control the choice of candidate other than a small group of active party workers who sit on what the Conservative Party call their executive committee and we on this side call a general management committee—

Mr. Dudley Smith: As the hon. Member says, things are changing. His own party has recently had the experience that no seat is really safe.

Mr. English: The hon. Member will find that that was said of his party, for example, in 1956, at the time of Suez, but I think that he will also agree that he now sits for a safer constituency than he did. It is true that there are still many seats in the United Kingdom where the personal qualities of the candidate may influence the election, but the turnover of seats at any one election is very small—smaller than people outside realise, though, of course, we know it here. In the overwhelming number of seats the voter never has a choice of candidate.
The case put by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam had some validity, but it would have had a great deal more validity if he had said that the Labour voters of a constituency should choose the Labour candidate and the Conservative voters choose the Conservative candidate. Instead of that, he said that the local party or association ought to have the power rather than the central party. It is about time we considered some things of this character.
What I should like to have seen in the Bill would have been the more or less agreed measures that we have; the items which are party or Government policy, such as votes at 18—but also a scattering of controversial proposals on which we could have had completely free votes, so that we could have a proper

debate upon them. Valuable though this Bill is, I hope that we will try to think of some system whereby new ideas can come into our political life, because it is new ideas that in many cases we need in our political life, and more participation by voters in it, as in the case I have mentioned.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) knows from the conversations we have had that I heartily agree with what he said about secrecy in your conference, Mr. Speaker. I regret that the arguments made available to us there have not been made available to the House as a whole. But the position is not as bad as he imagines, because certain evidence presented to the conference has been published, and any of the other organisations or bodies which submitted memoranda to us could have published those memoranda had they so chosen—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member's last statement a correct statement of the privileges of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that a point of difference is not a point of order.

Mr. Lubbock: All I can tell the hon. Member is that one organisation—the Electoral Reform Society—sent the conference a memorandum which it circulated amongst its membership. As far as I know, no officer of that Society was had before the Bar of the House for breach of privilege, so it must have been all right—or perhaps I am mistaken, and it might even now not be too late. But the arguments themselves, apart from the evidence, are equally important.
The hon. Member alluded to the publication of opinion polls, on which Mr. Speaker's Conference came to what I think was a bizarre decision, but as far as I can remember very little evidence on this subject was presented to us. The conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the arguments carried on internally among members of the conference. I believe that if one is to have this kind of procedure, there should be a sort of Standing Committee stage, the proceedings being reported and made available


to the House afterwards. One would not expect a Bill to go through the House without being dealt with by a Standing Committee, whose proceedings were published. Any other idea is ludicrous.
What the hon. Gentleman said about precedent having debarred the conference from giving of its information to the House is probably correct, I dare say—but I am not at liberty to say. All I emphasise is my hope that if we use this method in future for giving the House advice on electoral law, we will do it properly, and give not only the bare bones of that advice but the arguments on which it is based.
I shall not deal with the question of votes at 18 at any length now, as I spoke on this subject in our previous debate, but it might be very interesting for hon. Members who were not on the conference to read what kind of arguments we had there. We must have had a great deal more time to devote to the subject than the House has. We are now having a debate lasting six and a half hours, in which time we have to cover not only votes at 18 but a multiplicity of other matters. That means that we cannot go into the same detail as the conference, which continued its work over three years, could have managed to do, so the hon. Gentleman is quite right there.
I want to take up one or two points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) who has, I am sorry to see, left the Chamber. He is, apparently, anxious to answer the arguments put for votes at 18 but not to listen to any of the contrary arguments. His argument that knowledge comes with maturity made a curious proposition. People can have very great knowledge but no maturity and, conversely, can be very mature and still have acquired no knowledge. I am not sure into which category the right hon. Gentleman himself falls, but that was a most curious proposition of his, and one that I do not think that I have ever heard advanced before.
Had the right hon. Gentleman been present, I would have asked him: how does one measure maturity? It is, of course, impossible of measurement. Maturity varies from one individual to another, so whatever we say is a question of generalisation. To suggest that

evidence be produced by the British Medical Association does not help us at all. I am sure that the B.M.A. would have something valuable to say on the question of physical maturity, but nothing at all about judgment, on which it is not competent to pronounce—

Mr. Hamling: Especially political judgment.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, perhaps especially political judgment, because I do not think that the British Medical Association has particularly distinguished itself in political judgment in the past.
The other extraordinary statement made by the right hon. Member, and I hope that he will see fit to withdraw it, was that young people are racialist. I have never heard such an extraordinary and unwarranted proposition being advanced in this House. It is one for which the right hon. Gentleman has no evidence whatsoever. As I talk to the young people in my constituency, I find the very opposite to be true. The young people between 18 and 21 are more concerned with promoting racial harmony than are many of their elders, who have fixed ideas and do not want to see any kind of multiracial society created in this country. I do not know what kind of people the right hon. Gentleman talks to. They must be a very peculiar set.

Sir D. Glover: As the right hon. Gentleman is not at present in the Chamber to defend himself, I should say that the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is rather misquoting. The right hon. Member said that these were the findings of the poll, not that they were his own views.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know who took this poll and on what kind of sample it was based, nor the other details. The right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to give a reference.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is being unjust to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). It is no part of my function to defend him, but he referred to his speech in the debate on the White Paper and said that he had stated at length then what the nature of this investigation was. Whether that is so or not, I am not in a position to say, but that is what the right hon. Gentleman told the House.

Mr. Lubbock: I shall certainly refer back to the right hon. Gentleman's previous speech and see if I can find any reference to this poll. Unless we know how it was conducted and on what sort of sample it was based we cannot know whether we should attach credence to it. My own experience is absolutely contrary to the proposition. Young people are very much less racially inclined statistically than are the population as a whole. They are more keen on promoting racial harmony. Very substantial evidence has to be produced for a proposition such as the right hon. Gentleman advanced.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope we can get on with the debate. A large number of hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not want to spend a lot of time on the question of votes at 18 and I think I have said enough about that. I shall be coming back to it in Committee. Nor do I want to spend a great deal of time on the question of the single transferable vote, except to underline one or two reasons why we should make the change and why I shall seek to persuade the House to do so in Committee. This matter has not received sufficient attention.
I was rather struck when I listened to the Minister without Portfolio talking about his negotiations in Rhodesia. He spoke of the delimitation formula which was proposed to be adopted there and said it
provides that, as the number of Africans on the A roll increases, the Africans' chances of capturing A roll seats should increase proportionately.
He was saying that whatever decision is arrived at in Rhodesia it should be such as to give the African population a fair representation in the House of Commons in relation to the number of votes cast by that section of the population.
It would be interesting to ask him why he thinks the system on which we are spending a lot of time and effort arguing with Mr. Smith—and which I agree with him is vitally necessary to safeguard the interests of the population—would not be applicable in the United Kingdom. Is it not rather curious that we are not able to arrive at an agreement in the case of the "Fearless" proposals—and I agree with the reasons given by the right hon.

Gentleman for not doing so—when on no occasion in this country have we suggested that there is a defect in our electoral system of the character described by the right hon. Gentleman?
With the first past the post system an hon. Member can be elected with fewer votes than are given to his opponents. We have a situation where usually the Government party has fewer votes than its opponents combined and sometimes, as in 1951, fewer than the votes for the largest single opposing party. We had the case of the successful party obtaining a majority out of all proportion to its popular support. I know that some hon. Members claim credit for this system, but it tends to give larger majorities than the difference in votes would seem to indicate.
We have had 17 General Elections since 1900 and of those six have failed to give very large majorities. Four have given no clear majority to any one party—in 1910 twice, in 1923 and in 1929. Two of those General Elections gave very precarious majorities—in 1950 and as recently as 1964. It cannot be said that automatically our first past the post system gives the leading party a very substantial majority. We find a very small number of votes can have an inordinately larger effect, as for example in 1964 when there was a Labour majority of four in Brighton, Kemptown and 14 in Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) now has a majority of one.

Sir D. Glover: Three, not one.

Mr. Lubbock: In certain constituencies a very small number of voters can exercise a disproportionate influence on the result. Similar effects can be brought about by changes in constituency boundaries. When a few voters are transferred from one constituency to another through a boundary change it can mean the defeat of a sitting Member or a change in the whole political character of that constituency. In very General Election a very large proportion of those who vote have no effect on the election whatever. I believe an hon. Member has said that in an overwhelming number of constituencies the voter never has a choice. That is a valid criticism of our system.
I have mentioned Brighton, Kemptown. Until the hon. Member who sits for that constituency was elected in 1964, no Labour vote cast in Sussex has ever contributed to the election of an M. P. Conservative voters in County Durham are in the same position and in South Shields the Conservatives' failure to elect a representative of the party they prefer has been continuous since the Reform Act of 1832.

Mr. Hamling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) may think that is fine, but let him put himself in the position of a Conservative voter in such constituencies, or of a Labour voter in one of the Sussex constituencies, apart from Kemptown. I hope to develop this argument in greater detail in Committee.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member is making good debating points on the lines of a Liberal reform system, but will he express an opinion on the adverse factor making splinter parties by which it is impossible to have firm Government of either the Left or the Right? Experience in other countries in Europe, such as France, shows the complete bankruptcy of the politics of the system the hon. Member is advocating.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has displayed his total ignorance of electoral systems.

Mr. J. T. Price: Do not be arrogant.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member should not interevene if it is to make stupid remarks like that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He has referred to other countries, but France has never had a proportional system of election. It has had the second ballot system, which is nothing like the kind of procedure which we advocate. The single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies operates in the Republic of Ireland where it has been so successful that in a recent referendum two-thirds of its population voted for retention of the system against the advice of the Government.
It has also been successful in the Province of Tasmania, Australia where, interestingly enough, there are only two parties, Labour and Liberal, whereas in the rest of Australia there are four

parties, the Australian Labour Party, the Democratic Labour Party, the Country Party, and the Liberals. In the one State in Australia with the single transferable vote system there are two parties and where there is not that system there are four. I hope that the hon. Member for Westhoughton will consider the experience of other countries before he makes sweeping generalisations in talking about the single transferable vote. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into the argument in any greater detail now, because I promise that we shall have plenty of opportunity in Committee, providing that my Amendments on this subject are selected.
The first question which I want to ask the Secretary of State—this is a detailed point, but it may save Amendments in Committee—is whether it would not have been better in Clauses 5 and 6, which amend the Representation of the People Act, 1949, to have reprinted those Sections of the 1949 Act which are affected, such as Sections 12 and 23, so that we could have read them as a whole together with the amendments made by the Bill, instead of having to refer back constantly to the 1949 Act.
Clause 7 enjoins the registration officer to make corrections where he finds that somebody has not been included, although he had intended him to be so included. Will there be any addition to the election rules so that the list of omissions will be published by the registration officer on a suitable date, because otherwise perhaps 20 or 30 people who had been wrongly excluded from the register could be afterwards incorporated in it on the decision of the registration officer, although the political parties and others who might require this information would not be aware of it unless a supplementary list was published?
Coming to Clause 8, which deals with expenditure, I believe that, apart from the money which is spent in Parliamentary constituencies, thought should be given to the enormous outpourings by certain parties and other organisations nationally which are able to affect the results of elections. It is illogical that we should consider the expenditure by candidates in isolation.
During the 1964 General Election there was a terrific national Press advertising


campaign by the Conservative Party showing what different Ministers had done, how one of them had built 1,000 houses a minute, how another had erected 20 hospitals every half an hour, and how a third had constructed 1,000 schools in a fortnight. Everywhere one looked in the national Press this advertising appeared, with the grinning faces of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and others peering out at one.
I am not objecting to this money being spent. I say that it must have a substantial effect on the minds of the voters in the various constituencies, just as much as, if not more than, the £750 and the additional 1s. for every six entries in the register which the candidate himself can spend. It may cumulatively be a much greater amount. Therefore, I am asking whether the Government do not think that there is a question of principle here and whether there should not be a more thorough means of limiting the maximum expenditure in a General Election, which includes the money which is poured out by the parties nationally as well as their candidates in the field.
It would appear that Clause 9(1)(a) imposes a bar on pre-recordings being made and then, after nomination, their being transmitted by the broadcasting authorities. I do not see that this is necessary. I suggest that instead of "made" it should be "transmitted" in paragraph (a). That would allow the broadcasting authority greater freedom to pre-record a programme—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is going into Committee points.

Mr. Lubbock: I will just finish the sentence, Mr. Speaker: providing that the people who had taken part in the programme were nominated, it could be transmitted later.
The much more serious thing I want to say about Clause 9 is on subsection (2), which apparently makes it illegal for
any person…in managing or taking part in the management of the item or in editing it for the broadcasting
to favour
any of the candidates taking part".
I can see this creating all sorts of difficulties for the broadcasting authori-

ties and for those who conduct programmes. Let us suppose that Mr. Robin Day, in interviewing myself, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the Secretary of State for Scotland, gives me 20 seconds longer than he gives the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: That would be difficult.

Mr. Lubbock: It would be difficult because, once the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets going, he is very difficult to shut up. I have had experience of this, because I have taken part in programmes with him. I will put it the other way: let us suppose that Mr. Robin Day allows the right hon. and learned Gentleman 20 seconds longer than me—that is only too likely. Would he be guilty of an illegal practice because he has not given me or the Secretary of State the same time as he has given the right hon. and learned Gentleman? This will create all sorts of difficulties for those who are in the chair in discussion programmes and also for the producers who, after all, do not have any say in how much time each of the candidates is given.
Then there are the questions which may be addressed to the candidates. Somebody may think that Mr. Robin Day has been looking up his records. Mr. Day may find that I have never spoken on agriculture; so he asks me, "What do you think of the Price Review?" I then say, "You should not ask me that. You are guilty of an illegal practice because you are disfavouring me by asking me a question which you know that I cannot possibly answer". I think that subsection (2) should be deleted, unless the Government can bring forward much more concrete arguments in its favour than they have done so far.
On Clause 12, I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that party labels are of much greater importance in local elections than nationally. Since a number of hon. Members have mentioned the situation in London, where it is particularly acute. I should like to ask a question. I know that it is unfair on the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek to make him answer a question on London. Perhaps he can give me the reply some other time.
If for the reasons given by the Home Secretary it is impossible to extend this to all local elections—I appreciate that if all the candidates in 1,250 local authorities, which multiplied by 3 for the parties comes to 3,750 people, have to be authenticated in some way it will be an enormous undertaking—I wonder if special arrangements could be made for areas such as greater London where the problem is particularly acute. The London Government Act, 1963, contained separate provisions for electoral law. I suggest that somebody studies this before the Committee Stage.
Lastly, I think that the Government have made the right decision in Clause 15. I can understand that the local authority associations have objected to it, because they are mostly controlled by the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West put his finger on it when he said that this is the last remaining vestige of the property vote in our electoral system. I think it is about time it was removed.
I go further and assert that there is another problem which we should deal with at the same time. That is the question of people who have holiday cottages in various parts of the country and who use them as their addresses for voting purposes. This is quite a serious problem in some parts of the country, where there may be up to 700 people, so I have been told—there is very good evidence for this, and I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman if he likes to look at it at some other time—who, though normally living in a fairly small constituency, say, for only a few weeks of the year and who for the rest of the time follow their occupations in London, make their holiday cottage their principal residence and flock down there at a General Election to try to influence the result.
I should like to see a situation in which no one would be able to vote in a constituency unless he could show that his residence there was his principal residence. I suggest that this should be determined by an election court which would ask him where he spent most of his time. If a man spends two weeks or four weeks in his holiday cottage and the rest of the year in South Kensington, obviously, he should be registered in South Kensington and exercise his vote there.
The proposal to extend polling by one hour has caused some anxiety because it came in the recommendations of neither Mr. Speaker's Conference nor the Home Office Advisory Conference. I agree that it calls for a good deal more justification than we had from the Home Secretary today. If it would enable a lot more people to exercise the vote who are debarred from so doing under the present opening hours, I should favour the change, but I am not sure how one could ever prove that that was so. Since it will cause the maximum inconvenience and lead to delay in the publication of results, as more counting will have to take place the following morning, I suggest that, instead of making the closing hour 10 p.m. straight away, we should start with 9.15 and then, if it was found that a substantial number of additional voters were enabled to go to the poll, as shown by an increase in percentage turn-out, there would be a good argument in favour of going a little further. At the moment, however, there is no proof one way or the other, and it will create a great deal of difficulty for returning officers.
There is another point in this connection. The hours for local government elections and General Elections ought to be the same. I had hoped that the Government would propose opening the polls at 7 a.m. for local elections as is done for General Elections. On many occasions, I have found on going along to the polling stations that people arrive at 7 o'clock expecting the poll to be open, only to be told that it does not open until 8 o'clock because it is a local government election. They say, "We were down here only last month when there was a General Election, and we were able to vote at 7 o'clock". Then they may go off to work and not be able to come back before 9 o'clock in the evening, thus being deprived of their vote. I regard that as somewhat unfair.

Mr. Strauss: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. Interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Lubbock: I am just coming to an end, Mr. Speaker.
In general, my party will give the Bill its support, but there will be many points, such as those which I have mentioned,


which we shall wish to take up in Committee.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made the usual and predictable reference from a Liberal speaker in favour of the single transferable vote. When the Liberals were a major party, they showed very little enthusiasm for it. However, it is a matter to which we shall return when we discuss the Bill in Committee.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I am not greatly impressed by arguments for or against any proposition simply because it comes from Mr. Speaker's Conference or from the Latey Committee's Report. The House of Commons is now discussing the matter. The House will listen to the arguments, and it will make up its mind. As for the question of a free vote, again, I should be more impressed by a call for a free vote from the Opposition if they had shown much enthusiasm for free votes on constitutional questions when they were in power. They never did.

Sir D. Glover: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of it.

Mr. Hamling: I am in favour of free votes. All I am saying is that it does not lie with right hon. and hon. Members opposite to talk about them now when they themselves, when they had power, showed no enthusiasm for them. That was all. The hon. Gentleman was not listening.
Publication of the Bill is a certain sign that in five years we shall need another. The Government have shown a certain amount of timidity in putting forward the Bill in this form at this time. In one or two directions they have shown great vision, but in the retention of aldermen, on the question of expenses, on the extension of certain provisions to local elections in addition to changes to be made in Parliamentary elections, they have shown some timidity.
I take, first, the question of expenses. The sum of £1,150 may seem reasonable in my constituency at the moment, but will it seem reasonable in five years? My feeling is that it will not. I strongly recommend that we look carefully at this

question. It is not we who have to carry out the requirements. The responsibility falls on our agents; we are putting on election agents the job of keeping within the law although we ourselves do not have to. This is an unfair imposition, and I regard the limits as laid down in the Bill as far too narrow. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington, for once, when he draws the attention of the House to the scale of national advertising campaigns and calls for a review of that aspect of expenses. I hope that these will be matters to which we return in Committee.
I agree with what most speakers have said so far about party labels. Our concern here should principally be with local government elections. In my own borough, for example, we recently had a county election for the G.L.C. There were two candidates named Middleton. Perhaps I should not make this point, since the confusion helped my side, but one of the Labour candidates was elected as against two Conservatives, and it is my firm belief that it came about because a good many Conservatives voted for our Mrs. Middleton, thinking that she was the Conservative candidate. I always assume that the balance of intelligence is on the side of Labour voters. Similarly, in recent local elections we have had two Mrs. Bradleys appearing on the ballot paper. This also is confusing for a lot of ordinary people who are not as familiar with our Mrs. Bradley as, perhaps, they should be.
In some constituencies the list of candidates is surprisingly long. St. Pancras, for example, seems to go in for very long lists; I have seen as many as 24 candidates at a local election in St. Pancras. I do not know why St. Pancras should be so generous in candidates, but I am certain that, whenever there is a long list of that kind, an indication of party on the ballot paper would be a great advantage.
Although I appear a little concerned with the party aspect of the labelling question, I must add that I find it difficult to understand how the system would work. However, we shall return to that in Committee, no doubt, and consider the detail. I see nothing sinister in the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir D. Glover: Oh.

Mr. Hamling: No doubt, the hon. Gentleman sees something sinister in most things coming from this Government, but he is thoroughly biased.
Now, the question of broadcasting. I regard Clause 9 as reasonable, but I wish we could do something either through the Bill or in some other way to end the dreary party political broadcasts. They give neither party much real advantage. They are rather like the soap advertisements. They convince no one who knows anything of the real facts, and I wish we could see the end of them.
I wish we could have a situation in which broadcasters were given exactly the same freedom as the Press. I realise that some broadcasters are biased, but so are some journalists. We have learned to live with it and understand, and I believe that most electors have already discounted in their minds the bias of whatever newspaper they read. How else could so many hundreds of thousands of people vote Labour regularly, and yet regularly buy the Daily Express? They are impervious to all the nonsense and misrepresentation in that newspaper.
On the question of non-resident and property qualifications abolition, we had the usual predictable reaction from the hon. Members of the party opposite. This made me smile at their earlier assumption of the rightness of free votes. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) said, "When we return to power we shall change it "—nothing about a free vote. The party opposite opposed the abolition of university seats and the business vote. It opposed every reform in our constitution, including the abolition of the property qualification for Members. It opposed so many of these salutary changes.
Now hon. Members opposite say that business interests should have a say in how the rates are spent. But the 19th-century battle is over. We no longer have political representation based on financial interests. That is one of the major changes that has come about in our constitutional debates, and it would be a retrograde step if we went back on that, if we were to relate voting to property, to one's wealth. [An HON. MEMBER: "No taxation without representation."] What about the workers in

the firms who have, by their work, contributed to the wealth of that firm? Are they to have no say?

Mr. Sharples: That is the very point I made. The Maud Committee recommended that the workers should have a say.

Mr. Hamling: No doubt my right hon. Friend will return to this point.
The proposition is a retrograde step. What does one do with one's wife in this instance? I must declare an interest, because my wife is a property owner, and a substantial ratepayer in the City of Liverpool. She has never taken advantage of the law to vote in elections in Liverpool.

Sir C. Osborne: But she keeps the property.

Mr. Hamling: She keeps it as a trust. She knows the Old Testament very well.
We on this side of the House do not accept that democratic rights should be related to property holdings or personal wealth. We have moved away from that. It is very interesting that the Opposition should reserve their strongest criticism of the Bill for the overturning of one of the most reactionary principles in our constitutional history.
But they welcome my right hon. Friend's sticking to the City of London as it now is. That is one of the worst examples of timidity in the Bill. The City of London's separate entity should go, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts. It should be taken over by Tower Hamlets. Its rateable value would greatly contribute to the ending of squalor in that London borough.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wanted to go back even further and return to the business vote. I was not sure whether that was now the official policy of the Conservative Party.
I come to the question of the extension of hours, and must again declare an interest. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I represent a London seat, and I live in the same borough; I have lived there for 20 years. I am strongly in favour of extending the voting hours to 10 o'clock. My right hon. Friend said that


in his experience he could see no advantage, but I can. Canvassing in my constituency, I have known many an elector who has been unable to vote because he returned from work too late. Travelling to South-East London as I do regularly and often, I see an enormous number of workers who live in South-East London and do not get home until well after 9 o'clock or very late in the evening. There is a great deal of traffic down the Old Kent Road through Deptford and Greenwich at that time of night of people who live in that part of London and work well over on the other side. That also happens in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ilford. North (Mr. Iremonger). I used to work in his constituency. The extension should apply to local elections; there should be no difference.
Unlike my right hon. Friend, I am also strongly in favour of lowering the voting age. Like him, I am in favour of a free vote, but the reason is that I am always quite happy to follow the Government. I do not really need a Whip. I can make up my own mind, and, except very occasionally, support my Front Bench. I know where my duty lies—in the Government Lobby. If I am not out of Order in saying so, I am in favour of two propositions in politics—to keep the party opposite there and my right hon. and hon. Friends where they are.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will not be out of order if he will return to the Bill.

Mr. Hainling: Given time, Mr. Speaker, I could no doubt relate even those two propositions to the Bill.
The question is whether 18-year-olds are fit to vote, and in my view they are. If we look at mental capacity, we can visualise certain people well over the age of 21 who are completely unfit to vote.

Mrs. Renée Short: There are some in this House.

Mr. Hamling: I agree.
I have seen in my constituency—not my present constituency, but up North, where I used to stand—people who were clearly not fit to vote, being taken from a home to vote by attendants.

But we shall not apply the standard of mental capacity. We do not and should not. We say that people vote because they are a certain age.
But if we were to take the standard of mental capacity, my vote every time would be for our young people. I have taught young people for many years and am most impressed by our younger generation, a finer generation than we have ever had at that age. They are the inspiration of the V.S.O. and the driving force behind Task Force and Shelter; they are the driving force behind all the most idealistic and progressive social institutions in our society. They are altruistic and unselfish, and I have nothing but admiration for our young people. I can see nothing in any speech made today to indicate that they are unfit to vote at the age of 18. Who are the cynics, who are the dispirited, who are the disillusioned? Not our young people. Who are the most wicked people in our society? Not the young, but the old. If we are to talk about unfitness, we should look at ourselves.

7.30 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not pursue him in his argument, especially in the fascinating vista of what he is about to do with his wife. When the Home Secretary said that the Bill had no tidy or logical pattern, he was right. It is an extraordinary hotch-potch. It introduces considerable constitutional changes. It tidies up a lot of electoral loose ends. It introduces certain changes in local government elections as well.
One of the aspects open to criticism is the introduction for the first time, of separate electoral practices for local government elections and general and Parliamentary elections. This must be bad. I shall not rehearse the arguments which many right hon. and hon. Members have expressed about the desirability of local government elections conforming with Parliamentary elections, including timing, ballot paper, presentation, etc., and I would merely add that it is most desirable that they should so conform.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): But surely there is a difference now in time.

Miss Quennell: I accept that, but there is to be a very considerable difference as far as the ballot papers are concerned, and that must be undesirable.
Clause 1 has attracted much attention. I shall not discuss the question of the 18-year-olds, except to ask whether the accession of the new voters to the electoral register in 1970 will in any way prejudice or delay the implementation of the Boundary Commission Reports, which are based on figures which must now be falsified by the accession of new voters to the register.
There has been considerable discussion of Clause 15. I quote my own experience. For some years, I was fortunate enough to be councillor for a large and scattered rural division of a county council. My arrival on the council was the result of a contest, the first for 33 years in that division. There was a contest because I decided I would have a "crack" at the sitting councillor. Thereafter, interestingly enough, a political party from a town 40 miles away but still within the county saw fit to persuade one of its members to stand against me. That was a good thing because I always knew that I would have a contest. It kept me on my toes and stimulated a great deal of interest within the division which would not otherwise have arisen. Thus, the Government's proposal here will mean a loss in big scattered areas where, one can infer from the Registrar-General's reports, there is not even as much as one person per acre, just a sprinkling of knee caps and elbow joints, and where it is difficult to find candidates. The proposal will mean a deprivation in the rural areas of counties.
I warn the Home Secretary that in Committee I shall seek to correct a serious omission from that part of the Bill dealing with local government. It is not widely appreciated that in certain local government elections physically handicapped persons are deprived of the full franchise solely because, while there is provision for them to vote in Parliamentary and county council elections, at district council elections they cannot exercise the same franchise as the physically normal because they are not then entitled to use the proxy or postal vote available to them in Parliamentary elections. It is intolerable that we should reduce the franchise for certain groups

simply because they are physically handicapped, and I shall seek to correct the anomaly.
While the hon. Member for Woolwich, West may have some constituents who find it inconvenient to vote within the existing hours, we are going to ask for an incredibly long, hard working day from polling clerks and their staffs on an election day. Even now, it is a 14-hour day, and with the proxy and postal voting devices which exist, one would have thought that adequate.
The Bill, however, recommends an hour's addition, to make the polling day 15 hours. We must bear in mind that the staff who man the polling stations, and upon whom our democracy rests on these occasions, have at least an hour's work in tidying up once polling is closed and in the sealing of the tins according to law. The preparation of the polling station beforehand probably takes as long. Thus, we are opening up the prospect of a 17-hour day—and that is a very long day by anyone's standards. It is impossible to expect people to work hours of that length and then set about the count. It looks to me as if the count will have to be the following day and the declaration of the poll that much delayed.
Then there is the elaborate and complex machinery proposed in the Bill for establishing a registration of political parties. There seems a complete weakness in the Bill in that there is no definition of a political party. Indeed, there is no attempt to create such a definition. The phrase used in Clause 12 is "registered political description". The phrase "political description" is used throughout. Yet the registrar is to have enormous power over our constitution and political life hereafter. The powers he is to be given are terrifying.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) drew attention to the registrar's difficulty if he had to decide between two parties which use the same name or description—as the Bill calls it. He could postpone or delay consideration of the application for as long as he liked, apparently. There seems to be no curtailment of that power in the Bill. Under another Clause, he might hold inquiries, but into what, when there is no definition of a political party? What is to be the


position in relation to people who want to call themselves "Independent Conservatives" or "Independent Labour Party"? Apparently, they may call themselves "independent" but not independent with a political description.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I remind the hon. Lady that there is an honourable and long-lived party, the Independent Labour Party, which could register in the same way as anyone else.

Miss Quennell: But what criteria the registrar will apply in deciding what is Independent Labour, Independent Liberal or Independent Conservative, heaven knows. The idea that hereafter parties may have to pay fees for putting forward candidates is a principle which we have never considered before and which should now be considered very deeply.
This will be a very controversial Bill. I cannot see how it could be otherwise. I find the machinery envisaged for the registrar deeply disturbing. The Bill will have a long and complicated Committee stage on the Floor of the House when perhaps we shall be able to sort out some of the problems which so many hon. Members have observed.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) has made a most engaging contribution to the debate, but I am sure that she will forgive me if I do not proceed along the lines of her argument.
I regard the Bill as one of the most important to be introduced during this Parliament. In the 19th century there was the great fight, which was eventually won, for full adult male suffrage, and by 1928 women over the age of 21 had obtained the vote, too. Now we have this most imaginative proposal to introduce voting at 18. The Government are to be commended on their courage in introducing it.
There are other important proposals in the Bill. One example is Clause 12, which provides that political descriptions of candidates shall be inserted on nomination and ballot papers in Parliamentary elections. I agree with the proposal as far as it goes, but I agree with other hon. Members that the political descrip-

tion should also be inserted on papers in local elections. I appreciate that there are difficulties, but difficulties are intended to be overcome, and in this case they can be overcome.
I have always been proud of my party affiliation. I joined the Labour Party at a very early age, and I have never belonged to any other party. In the mining valleys of South Wales it was almost axiomatic that if one were interested in politics one joined the Labour Party. Some people tend to try to give the impression that it is not quite nice to be closely associated with a political party. While I think that some political issues transcend party politics, I believe that clear party divisions are essential to the survival of our democratic institutions.
From time to time there are calls for a coalition Government, but people who make such a call are deluded, because our party system as we know it is the greatest safeguard against totalitarianism; and it was the totalitarian system which produced Hitler and Stalin. People should have a clear choice, and party labels are essential in Parliamentary elections when people not only vote for a Member of Parliament but participate in the election of the Government.
But there is also a need for labels in local government elections. My argument is borne out by the fact that almost all the major local authorities are administered by the party system. Otherwise, it could be said, they would be in a state of disarray. I know that hon. Members opposite and their party often try to make a pretence of being non-political, but I have always found that to be a loaded term. In South Wales people sometimes use different descriptions from one election to another, leading a sort of chameleon-like existence.
Speaking as the first Welsh back bencher to take part in the debate, I must say that in Wales we have a particular problem because of the similarity of names—the Joneses, the Williamses and the Davieses, and so on.

Mr. Fred Evans: Do not forget the Evanses.

Mr. Hughes: And the Evanses.
I give the example of the Parliamentary election in Anglesey in 1964, when


he candidates included J. E. Jones, E. G. Jones and R. T. Jones. Fortunately, there was a fourth candidate who was named Hughes, and, needless to say, he won the election. I hope that the Clause will be amended in Committee so that labels can also be used in local government elections.
I also support the proposal to extend the hours of polling. Ten o'clock is reasonable in all the circumstances and will be of particular benefit to Wales. There, we are witnessing the rapid decline of the coal mining industry. Perhaps the House need not be reminded that coal has to be mined where it is found, and it is often found in the most inaccessible places. Miners tend to live near their place of work. However, with the closure of many mines in South Wales, there has arisen the problem of the siting of new factories. The valleys where the mines have existed are often unsuitable for industrial development, and the Government have, therefore, devised a strategy of siting industry and building factories at the heads or mouths of the valleys.
This, in turn, has meant that people now have to travel further to work, and likewise have further to go home in the evening. Added to that, there is the incidence of overtime working, which has long bedevilled industry and which is partly the cause of much of its inefficiency. Nevertheless, we have to accept that much overtime is worked, and, besides producing inefficiency in industry, it is a positive deterrent to people to participate in the normal democratic process.
With longer distances to travel and overtime work, people tend to come home late, have a meal, curl up by the fire and watch television, so that before they look round it is nine o'clock and the polling booth is closed. [Laughter.] The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) may laugh, but that is nevertheless the fact, as will be borne out by the experience of many hon. Members.
The kernel of the Bill is Clause 1, which provides for votes at 18. This is an imaginative proposal and a challenge to the young. It has long been apparent that our young people are keen to participate and that they have opinions about government. Those opinions are not to be discouraged, particularly when

young people are now better informed than ever before. Many more are stay-on at school beyond the statutory limit; many others go to universities and colleges.
A large percentage receive some form of additional adult education or training. Hardly a day goes by without our reading in the papers about young people demonstrating, for one cause or another. Now, at last, they have the opportunity to participate in our normal constitutional process by exercising their right to vote.
Young people are maturing earlier, and eager to take on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. I was surprised to listen to the tale of woe poured out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I was sad to hear this, particularly bearing in mind the progressive points of view which he has put forward in his earlier days. We hear much more now about the need for participation in our affairs, and this proposal will create the feeling of involvement.
At one stroke it will introduce 3 million young people to the voting register. They can, and should, supply the boldness, imagination and idealism which tended to be in short supply in our affairs. These are the qualities that are needed if Britain is to overcome its difficulties. I support the Bill and am pleased to be associated with a Labour Government who have had the courage to introduce such a radical Measure.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In the interests of brevity I will not follow the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) in his dissertation, but I would support him in his contention that the party system is the bulwark against totalitarianism. While we have a strong party system we have not got a great deal to fear from the advances of totalitarianism from outside sources. Whether political parties themselves become totalitarian is another matter.
I would like to strike a discordant note, having sat through most of the speeches today, because I find the Bill a very depressing document. Apart from the question of the lowering of the voting age, with which I will deal briefly, there


are many other smaller but important considerations and, even putting aside self-interest and party prejudice, most of these changes are for the worse. I do not think that the lengthening of the polling hours by one hour will make any material numerical change in the pattern of voting. It will merely put an additional strain on the officials and the party workers. It will make the night's counting all the more gruelling, not only for the candidates but for all those involved.
The placing of political affiliations on the ballot paper may, in the end, cause more confusion than it seeks to end. I have always felt that, if a person is not intelligent enough to work out for himself which party a particular candidate represents, he is not really worth a vote at all. If one cannot take the trouble, before going to the voting station, to make certain that A, B or C represents Conservative, Labour or Liberal, one should not be entitled to vote. Despite the strength of the major parties, there is still a minority number of individual votes cast, particularly in local government, and it seems strange that, if this provision comes about, it should not apply also in local government.
Why depersonalise the situation further? If we wish to go to straight party labels, why not have the ballot papers marked "Conservative", "Labour", "Independent", "Liberal" or any other party? It recalls to mind the story, probably apocryphal, of the man who implied that he was so bigoted that he would vote for a pig if his party put up that animal. We have to try to get more personalities back into politics, in the interests of democracy. It could be extremely difficult, and this is a very vexed problem into which we shall go in more detail in Committee, to decide whether a particular party is allowed to use a particular label.
The Under-Secretary said that he remembered in previous years a party called the Independent Labour Party. I would accept that and regard it as a proper label to be used in certain circumstances. But what of a group of individuals or a so-called party which describes itself as "The Real Conservative Party", or "The New Labour Party", or "The Old Liberal Party", or

even the straight definition, the colloquial terms of "Tory" and "Socialist"?
As far as I can see, there is no objection to these names being registered. One could imagine the "old women" of both sexes being very confused by this, quite apart from the general electorate. The theme and variations of party and group labels could be infinite and, in the end, they are calculated to do more harm than they would improve the present system.
I also think that the suggestion of abolishing the non-resident vote is a retrograde and political step. It will have the effect of losing a large number of useful men and women to the service of local government, especially at a time when, as every party knows, it is very difficult to get good local government members. If there were a surfeit of talent, all well and good, I would perhaps go along with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we know that it is extremely difficult for all political parties to get people of calibre, of service, to go on to local councils.
Inevitably, whatever the political consequences, local government will suffer. It is also particularly pointless and partisan at present, when we know that the Maud inquiry into local government is coming along shortly. It may well recommend larger units, it may recommend newly-defined areas. Why muck about now, why not leave it to see how the pattern emerges in the months to come?
I would like to support the increase in election expenditure which, I am sure, all hon. Members will find welcome because the parties have been at their wits' ends recently in trying to run an efficient campaign with a budget eroded by inflation. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have had the experience of fighting a by-election recently will subscribe to that view. My feeling, however, is that the allowance is still not generous enough. I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) in pleading that perhaps we could still, without undermining democracy, allow a larger total sum. It would not give an undue advantage to rich parties like the Labour Party; it would be perfectly fair. On the whole, we have, very carefully, because of increasing inflation, to watch this question of election expenses.
I am very disappointed that the Bill does not tackle two fundamental weaknesses in our present electoral system. We live under the principle that everyone enfranchised is entitled to vote, indeed, we feel that they should be encouraged to vote. Yet the classification for postal voting is very niggardly. All of us have discovered electors who find, to their annoyance, that they are disqualified because they have to go away and are out of time in applying for a postal vote. A system should and could be devised whereby postal votes could be obtained up to 48 hours before the poll. The public is abysmally ignorant of the postal vote procedure. Many people do not understand it or know how to go about applying for it and much more could be done officially in the collection and organisation of postal votes.
The biggest defect of the whole Bill is that it does not make any provision for the holiday vote. With a more prosperous society, and with better opportunities for travel, more and more people at all levels are holidaying away from home at different times of the year, not just in August. It is surely common justice that they should not be denied a vote if a by-election happens to come along in their particular area or if a General Election should fall while they are on holiday. The other fundamental weakness to my mind is that the out-of-date way in which we count our votes is perpetuated by the Bill. I know that the Home Secretary referred to the feasibility study into whether we cannot devise a new system for the counting of votes. I welcome this.
I would hope very much that in this computerised age we could, because when one looks at some of the results which have occurred over the years one realises that quite serious errors have been made in the counting of votes. It might not matter much in a constituency where the majority is extremely large and where only a handful of votes is lost, mislaid or miscounted, but it could be crucial in a key marginal seat.
Reference has been made in a different context to the contest which took place at Peterborough in the last election, which the representative of my party won by three votes, and at Kemptown, Brighton, in 1964, which the party opposite won by seven votes. We know that

on both those occasions there were innumerable recounts, with different results each time. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a system efficiently and expertly to count the votes quickly and help to put candidates out of their agony on polling night.
This Bill is basically about votes at a younger age. Many people are puzzled about the cult of youth which is going on, which is exploited by the various media and which is latched on to by so-called progressives who do not wish to seem out of date, or who may have more calculated motives. We are, perhaps, the most youth-conscious country in the world. It is in many ways surprising, because there is nothing very unique in youth. It is an experience which we have all undergone and inevitably those who are young today will themselves grow old in due course.
The one precious asset which we all have when we become older—and this was referred to by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)—is experience. It is something which comes with the years. One's experience is different from everybody else's. It can be applied in civic and social responsibilities. With social responsibilities, one has to equate developed experience.
The question which we must ask ourselves today—indeed, in the weeks and months ahead—is whether there is a proper dividing line and whether it should be at the age of 18. Probably most people between the ages of 18 and 21 would agree that it is a good idea to have a Parliamentary vote. I think that it would be fair to say that tht majority of people over 30, and probably in the 30–40 agre group, do not favour the idea of those younger people receiving the Parliamentary vote. As we have heard several times today, Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended overwhelmingly in favour of the age of 20, which has always seemed to me to be a sensible age. When we have a conference, why do we not accept its views?
I would like to be very contentious and say that, in my opinion, the reason is a political one. The Government think that they can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat at the next General Election with the aid of 3 million voters who, like most of us in our youth, may be going through a radical and Left-wing


phase. I believe, however, that, not for the first time, the Prime Minister has miscalculated on this issue. So woeful has his Administration been and so tarnished is his image that he will not gain the support of the majority of these new voters if they come on to the registers.
If we are embarking on such an exercise, why should the age be 18? Why not 16? Indeed, why not 8? My son, who is an avid newspaper reader, all of 8 years old, commented the other day, quite unprompted, that "Mr. Wilson seemed to be in a mess and it was time to send for Mr. Heath. "Such a diagnosis warranted him a Parliamentary vote and I would have been very much in favour of his gaining one.

Mr. Hamling: That was his master's voice.

Mr. Smith: Short-term political considerations are a bad basis for the long-term interests of democracy. Political considerations should not enter into an issue like this. It needs to be carefully thought out if we are not to tamper with the well-tried structure of the constitution. Even taking the most altruistic view of what is taking place, I am far from convinced that this is necessarily the right step. It is too important to be viewed from the narrow vantage point of one party.
The consequence of votes at 18 will be interesting. It will be difficult to gauge the exact effect of the step initially, and probably it will be hard to attribute the course of particular voting patterns at the next General Election, but certain other patterns might well emerge in years to come.
The better and more responsible way, however, would have been to reduce the voting age one stage at a time and at each stage to analyse the results obtained. This would have been far more satisfactory and far more in the interests of democracy. It is interesting to speculate. Many people say that the Prime Minister will be remembered for many things. I think that he will be remembered for very few things. One thing for which he will be remembered is the time when he reduced the voting age to 18. I believe, also, that it will be commented and remembered that it was that step which led in the end to his political downfall.

8.05 p.m.

Mr. Tony Gardner: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) in detail, but in defence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister it should be made clear that the view that the voting age should be reduced to 18 has been held by the Labour Party for a considerable time. I fought two General Elections with that as one of the planks of my political platform. The idea has not, therefore, suddenly arrived at a particular time of crisis in the life of the Prime Minister. Hon. Members should be fair about this.
I want briefly to give general support to the Bill, basically because it gives the vote to some people who at present do not have it but should have it, and because it takes the vote away from people who now have it but should not have it. I am, however, in agreement with those right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, who have complained about the way that we are dealing with the Bill tonight. Like them, I agree that constitutional issues of this kind should be dealt with on the basis of a free vote.
Having said that, however, I must also confess that if I felt strongly against any provisions of the Bill, I should have no hesitation in going into the "No" Lobby. I do not know why hon. Members opposite have made such heavy weather of all this business tonight. On various occasions, some of my hon. Friends have never found it difficult to ignore the advice given to them by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, and I have no doubt that on other occasions some of us may choose to ignore that advice again.
I should like to add my voice in support of the decision to reduce the voting age to 18, because I believe that young people between the ages of 18 and 21 will use that responsibility at least as wisely as a good many of us who are 40 and over—and I am sorry to confess that I have now reached that ripe old age.

Mr. Hamling: No one would think so.

Mr. Gardner: A great deal of the issues which we are debating—I refer particularly to the speech of my right


hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)—have been debated many times. Every proposal to extend the franchise has been opposed on the ground that the new voters in question were incapable of acting rationally and making political judgments.
In the late 18th century, Edmund Burke, the philosopher father of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, when reflecting on the revolution in France, talked about the awful possibility of governments of tallow chandlers and the like. I do not know what he would think of hon. Members opposite today if he could be resurrected and visit this House. Again, in 1850 even a good Liberal like John Stuart Mill was rather frightened of the prospect that if the poor got the vote they would use the taxation system to exploit the rich. While it is true that they have done this to some extent, there are some hon. Members who, no doubt, believe that modern Chancellors of the Exchequer use that taxation power to exploit the poor as well.
I have been looking through the great debates which took place in the House at the end of the First World War, in 1917, particularly on the issue of votes for women. It is clear that the issue is still the same. During the long nights of the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill, 1917, speaker after speaker talked about how women were hysterical and emotional and were given to running off at tangents.

Mr. Hamling: They still are.

Mr. Gardner: Yes. Despite these possible disqualifications, the House decided that it was right that women should have the vote. The interesting thing is that exactly the same arguments have been used today. It has been said that young people are immature, lack experience and tend to support ideals rather than act rationally. I would not wish to tangle with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall on logic. I do not believe that it is possible to prescribe a logical age for voting. I suppose that the present age of majority, 21, has something to do with one's ability to mount a horse wearing a suit of armour. Certainly it has nothing to do with the ability to make up one's mind on political matters. Therefore, we can-

not make judgments about what the voting age should be or whether or not people are capable of exercising what we may call good political judgment.
I am sure that many of us in political life have performed the very difficult and sometimes sad task of ensuring that old people know about the requirements and opportunities for postal voting. How many of us have gone to geriatric wards in hospitals to make sure that the old men and women use their democratic right? Some of them simply do not know what day it is, and yet we try to persuade them to go out and vote. We cannot make a judgment about this proposal on that kind of basis. Any voting age must of necessity be wholly arbitrary.
There are other things which we should consider. We should ask ourselves whether the mature in our society have made such a good job of things, whether the over-21s, or more likely, the over-25s, have always been wise in their political judgments over the last 20 years.

Mr. Hogg: Or even the last three.

Mr. Gardner: Or even the last three.
The record of the last 20 years shows that on most occasions the electors have supported the Conservative Party, but that is not my point. I am talking not about political parties but about the judgments which people make on the great affairs of this world. I am not sure that we who are now in politics have given to our young people the best possible world. The real case for representative democracy—and that is what we are talking about—is a question not only of rationality or the age of majority, but whether the Government in power have to take account of the opinions, views and needs of the people they govern.
I happen to believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), that the majority of young people have ideas about poverty, war and peace, homes, education and race which are a little more civilised than most of the views of most people of my age. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I believe that a Government elected on the basis that they must take account of the ideals and views of people between the ages of 18 and 21 are more civilised. Therefore, I support the Bill.
I welcome the proposal to put political labels on ballot papers. I confess that I


am in some agreement with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), because I cannot understand the need for the very complicated machinery which exists to register political names. Perhaps the reason is the considerable number of pseudonyms which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have used from time to time. I picked out a list from the Library. Over the years they have been called Conservatives, Liberal Conservatives, Conservative and Liberal, Liberal National, National Liberal, National Liberal Conservative, Conservative and National Liberal, Liberal Unionist, Scottish Unionist and Ulster Unionist. At local level, the variety is even wider: Conservative Ratepayers, Progressives, Citizens. You pay your money and you take your pick.

Mr. Hamling: Even Moderates.

Mr. Gardner: Yes.
I do not think that this matters very much because a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. When the electors go to the polls, they can recognise a Conservative by the title which he uses. The difficulty comes when he describes himself as an Independent. I represent the largest single local government unit in my area, an urban district. It is a small urban district divided into very few wards. We have wards with five council seats in them. On occasions, we have five Conservatives, five Socialists, five Ratepayers, a few Liberals and a few Independents. The result is that people cannot distinguish one from the other.
I therefore welcome this proposal. If the problem of deciding who shall use political labels is real, I should have thought that we could overcome it by writing into the Bill a provision that those who use the word which is ascribed to an existing politial party should be promoted by that political party according to the rules of that party. From time to time we must look at the way in which trade unions conduct their elections. I see no reason why we could not find a formula which would avoid this messy business and the need for registration.
I welcome the proposal to alter the arrangements for property qualification in local elections. I am not in the least surprised that the local authority associations have made representations. Surely

the issue is whether we should base the right to vote on the fact of citizenship or on the fact of contribution. We have heard the argument that, since the business community in any town pays rates, it has the right to vote. But the business community which pays rates passes those rates on to its customers. Should not those customers have the right to vote? Leicester City Corporation, which is not far from my area, made a very substantial profit this year on its transport undertaking. Should not passengers from outside Leicester who contributed to that substantial profit have the right to a say on how it shall be spent?
I know of one very small urban district in which not one but the whole membership of the council in charge of it lives in the surrounding rural district. If by any stretch of the imagination this can be called democracy, I do not know what we are talking about. The change in property qualification will take us yet another further step forward along the road towards real democracy. I shall vote for it for that reason.
I hope that in Committee we shall have an opportunity to consider the points which have been made about the detailed operation of the Bill and not merely extend the political labelling downwards but examine how our electoral system works. I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I find myself in agreement with many hon. Members who have been distressed at the way in which we have been informed about this debate. The fact that Mr. Speaker's Conference was not able to reveal evidence means that many of us, particularly the newer Members, are working very much in the dark.
I agree with hon. Members who have spoken, about votes at 18. The fact that Mr. Speaker's Conference decided in one way or another should not influence us. In our discussion tonight about votes at 18 I have had the impression that we have been talking about cheeses rather than people. We have heard a lot about maturity, and ripening into maturity. Some hon. Members have been a little patronising. I am 34 years of age. I was young 10, 12 or 13 years ago. I am sure that the present generation of people


between the ages of 18 and 21 have a real share of idealism, as all younger generations have had, right through the ages. Those who went to fight in the Spanish Civil War were prepared to turn their idealism into action, although some of us may not agree with what they did. Many other young people between the ages of 18 and 21 could not care less about our present problems. Nevertheless, many are concerned, and feel frustrated about them.
That is not the main point. With respect: to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and certain other hon. Members who are unhappy about giving votes at 18, I would point out that we can all think of a certain age at which votes should be given. In this matter one is reminded of the question, "How long is a piece of string?". There is no ideal age at which a person should exercise his right to vote. In view of educational and other advances that have been made, however, it is clear that the age of 21 is no longer appropriate, especially if legal responsibilities are to be given to people at the age of 18.
One great social change is taking place, in purely financial terms. A young, single man working in industry—not as an apprentice, and with no intention of training for higher education—is probably contributing more to the economy, by way of direct and indirect taxation, than a man twice his age. That is one argument why people of that age should be given the vote.
Hon. Members have also referred to young people in the Services. At the age of 18 I was engaged in a fairly responsible job in the flying control of an aircraft carrier in the Korean War. I did not have the vote then, and so I had no say in the political complexion of the Government who sent me to Korea. But it went further than that, because although I became 21 years of age in March, 1955, and the General Election was held in May, 1955, because of the extraordinary system that still exists I was not entitled to vote then, and did not vote until the General Election of 1959, by which time I was 25. To me that situation is completely unacceptable.
At the age of 18 or 19 many young people are happily married, and wish

to take on responsibilities. Many have one, two or three children. Some people may say that they have married too young, but it is a fact of life that we have to face. It is what the law allows, and shortly the law will allow such people to enter into contracts and do many other things. For those reasons there is a strong argument for giving young people the vote at the age of 18. Nothing that I have heard outside or inside this Chamber has dissuaded me from that view.
We must bear in mind the fact that the vast majority of young people are not straining at the leash to have the vote at 18. That is my experience in talking to young people. Nevertheless, the arguments in favour of it are cogent and, that being so, we should consider the effect that giving these people the francise will have on some hon. Members, because it is very important. I have already rehearsed some of these arguments in a previous debate. I then received no reply. I hope that I shall get one tonight. I then asked the Home Secretary, by way of a Parliamentary Question, what would be the increase in the electorate of an average constituency by granting votes at 18. I was told that, on average, it would add 6 per cent. to the electorate in any given constituency, plus 2 per cent. for the first time only, because of the problems of people who were not getting the vote between the ages of 21, 22 and 23.
The figure of 6 per cent. means, in a constituency of 50,000 or 60,000 an additional 3,000 or 4,000 votes. My researches in this matter have not yet been disproved. The situation is more complicated than some people think, because in a very small constituency, in the heart of a city that is dwindling, a lower than average number of people is entitled to vote. We all know of constituencies in the hearts of cities with electorates of 20,000, 22,000 or 25,000. In some cases a vast number of young people live in such constituencies, but are not registered to vote there because they are in bed-sitters.
We all know of some sprawling growth constituencies which are considerably larger than the average—80,000 plus. My researches show that there is an above-the-average number of young people in


such constituencies. In the present situation the disparity between the large and the small constituencies will be exacerbated by giving votes at 18. I am in favour of giving people votes at 18, but, since I represent one of the largest constituencies, my situation will get worse. The vote in my constituency is likely to rise by considerably more than 6 per cent. We have heard a lot about democracy in respect of local government elections, but it seems to me that if democracy is to mean anything it is important that we should devise some means to redress the balance, so that there is not such a great difference between the very large and the very small constituencies.
I have referred to the question of redistribution. If the situation is to be made worse by the passing of the Bill—as will undoubtedly be the case—there is a strong case for the Government's implementing redistribution within six months of receiving the report from the Boundary Commission. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me that assurance tonight, because many other hon. Members who represent constituencies like mine will otherwise find themselves in a difficult position.
On the question of party labels, I agree with those hon. Members who say that the new proposal is nonsensical in its present form because it does not cover local elections. In respect of General Elections, I echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that we must think the electorate pretty dim if we think that it needs political affiliations to be spelt out in such a way. I can see real difficulties arising. I am told by Parliamentary agents that the present scheme will be largely unworkable and probably not understood by small parties and people who wish to stand to fight for a particular cause—anti-vivisectionists, or people who are anti-Common Market or pro-teen-age party, or whatever it may be.
The question who will supply the registrar with the licences is also an important one. I must declare an interest, in that I am a former employee of the Conservative Central Office. I do not wish to be disloyal to it, but I must point out that ultimate wisdom does not lie in the Conservative Central Office, or in

Transport House, or in the Liberal Party headquarters, or whatever it may be. My first responsibility is to my local political party and not to the boss-men in No. 32 Smith Square. I am sure that hon. Members opposite feel the same about their local political parties.
We could examine the splits and schisms of the party opposite—Labour and National-Labour before the war—and the problems that occurred then. One also knows the problems that can occur in a constituency where a party wants to ditch its present Member or candidate and adopt someone else. We can see many problems arising from giving too much power to the party machines. I echo what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) said. If this proposal goes through it will take away the influence of local parties.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) spoke of primary elections. It is a mistake for a Government to tell political parties or individuals what they should do. There is nothing to stop any political party having a primary election if it wishes. When my party's candidate was chosen for Brighton, Kemptown, there was virtually a primary election for all the members of the Conservative Association. Thousands of them turned up at the Winter Gardens, or wherever it was, to cast their votes for candidates. Earlier this year, when I was chosen as the Conservative candidate for Meriden, a special meeting was held to which all paid-up members of the association were invited to come and say whether or not they liked me as the choice. Indeed, there have been cases where similar meetings have resulted in the committees being told to go away and put forward another candidate. It is wrong for the Government to be expected to legislate to tell people what they should do. If people are to work in the political machine, one has to command their confidence and trust; otherwise, in the final analysis, they will neither work for nor vote for one.
A lot has been said about local government voting, residential qualifications, and the rest of it. I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of allowing people who work but do not live in an area to be allowed to stand for the area in local government elections. This is well worthy of consideration, following the Maud Report. Considerable


and radical changes are due in local government, about which we may hear before this Bill goes through all its stages. In the present state of play, it would be foolhardy to introduce a change of this sort which may be upset completely by a new form of local government. If the arguments about property and qualifications for standing at local government elections have any force, they seem to raise equally good arguments for doing away with the rating system. However, that is another matter, and I will not go into it now.
There is an argument for saying that Members of Parliament should reside in their constituencies. I live two miles from mine, and I should be happy to move across the boundary. However, some hon. Members who are keen on people standing for local government living in their wards, might not be so keen to live in their constituencies.
Returning again to the subjects of democracy and the representation of the people, I am most concerned about redistribution, not because I must declare a personal interest in that, by 1971, I shall have the largest electorate in the United Kingdom, but because there is a very important principle at stake. Under the present system, while hon. Members are expected to attend to their constituency duties and their parliamentary duties in this House on national affairs, an intolerable financial and physical burden is being placed upon them, when one considers the great disparities between electorates of 130,000 or 140,000 and others of 20,000 or 15,000. It is not fair to the people whom we represent that their votes should have only one-seventh or one-eighth the attention of those of people living in cities. If we pass this Bill and especially that part of it dealing with votes at 18, with which I agree entirely, we shall make the situation worse. Representation of people can have any meaning only if the Government give a clear pledge that redistribution will be effected without delay.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) in supporting the proposal for the vote at 18 years of age. I am glad that he has drawn attention to the arithmetic. A person born in the

second half of 1938 would not have cast a vote in a Parliamentary election until 1964, by which time he would have been 26. By bringing the effective age down to 18, most people will vote for the first time in Parliamentary elections from the age of 20 and upwards. A small proportion will vote at 18, but most of them will not vote until they are 20 or 21.
The only point with which I want to deal is one which has not been discussed very much in this debate nor in the previous one. It concerns the compilation of the electoral register.
Whatever the law says about the right to vote at 18, if people are not on the register they cannot vote. I am surprised that so little attention has been paid in the debate to the system of compiling the register and appeals for inclusion or, for that matter, exclusion. I suspect that the present system is not very well understood by the general public.
Compilation takes place at a time when the general public are far from thinking about elections. This is inevitable, because there must be a time lag between the compilation of the register and the election. However, difficulties are created when people who have not been paying much attention to this process find, after 16th December or a similar date, that they do not have the franchise for another 14 months; that is, if they are not on the register.
Why do we have this weird system of dating these matters? What significance has 10th October as a qualifying date or 28th November for the publication of the lists? Why is 16th December laid down for those who wish to appeal, and why is 16th February laid down for the publication of the register? When I have been an election agent I have been questioned about the significance of these dates and have been unable to give the answer.
Could we not have a system of dates which is more easily recognisable and which, over a period, people would come to recognise as the dates by which they should be paying attention to their electoral rights? I defy any hon. Member to ask the passer-by, the ordinary voter—the same might be said of people who are interested in politics—the meaning of these dates, or even what the dates are.


I am sure that they could not answer. I am equally sure that not sufficient publicity is given to this process and that the general public do not know enough about getting on to the register.
The Home Secretary referred to the possibility of publishing two registers a year, and mentioned the likely cost. Such a course would not settle the problem. We would still have the problem of informing the electorate of the process involved and their rights—of ensuring that it becomes common knowledge that on a certain date the public must see that their names are on the list and that, if they are not, they will not get a vote.
In May, 1967, an interesting study was conducted by the Home Office into the problem of the degree of error in the electoral list. Although at first sight an error of 4 per cent. overall does not seem appalling, it means, by my calculations, that nearly 1½ million voters who should have been on the list, and who were entitled by law to be on it, were not included.
The error becomes worse with the passage of time, as people move from one address to another and as they are not living at the qualifying addresses shown on the register. Between the original compilation of the register and its publication, we see that the error has grown by 3 per cent., so that not 96 per cent. of the people are correctly registered but only 93 per cent., and as the register gets older the error increases, so that by the end of the electoral register's life it is only 85 per cent. accurate.
In other words, the people listed at the addresses shown on the register are accurate only to the tune of 85 per cent. A system which permits this element of error in a matter so important as the franchise, which is the most important civic right anybody has, is inadequate and needs urgent study.
Not only is this error overall, but there are different margins of error according to different groups of people. In view of the Government's intention to reduce the voting age to 18, they should seriously consider this substantial error in the registration of "Y" voters where, according to the survey which I have quoted, there is a 26 per cent. error on

the register as it stands. This means that only about 74 per cent. of "Y" voters who are entitled to be on the list actually get onto it.
The survey also shows that, in the 25 and under age group, there is a 7 per cent. error compared with a 4 per cent. error overall, and that in the 25 to 29 age group the error is 6 per cent. There is also a high degree of error in respect of people who move house during the previous 12 months.
I believe that our present system of registration deserves a great deal closer scrutiny than it has been given, and that the Bill would provide a good opportunity, since we are making so many minor administrative reforms as well as major constitutional changes, to study very much more closely the techniques of registration, particularly as nowadays we have such sophisticated methods as data processing and the use of computers.
My right hon. Friend referred to a study which had been made on the use of computers. I have a copy of this study, although I have not yet read it very closely. It claims that, within five years, computers will be in use at local level throughout the country for the compilation of the electoral register. If that is the case, very serious attention should be given to whether this antiquated system of dates, which seems to go back a couple of decades or more, should not be revised, and whether we cannot do things a little more expeditiously and a little more clearly.
It seems, on the face of it, rather odd that more than five months should elapse from the official qualifying date to the actual date of the publication of the register—from 10th October to 16th February; that in these days, when we have all these data processing techniques, it should take such a long time to produce the register. The longer the lapse of time, the more inaccurate the register becomes.
A great deal more attention should be given to publicising the register and making it available to people for checking. At present, it is usually on a shelf somewhere in public libraries, or hidden in a corner in some post office. I do not believe that it is in all post offices. I remember once having an argument in Sheffield to get the register displayed


in a post office on a new housing estate, where it was particularly important that people should be able to see it. There were very strange objections to that being done, though I never found the basis for them.
I see no reason why the Government should not place a statutory obligation on every bank to display the draft electoral register. The banks have all sorts of statutory obligations—why not require them to put in a suitable space a copy of the register? Every post office might easily be required to display it. Why no: have a copy in every school? That may sound an odd proposition, since school children cannot vote—

Mr. Hogg: It will not be long now.

Mr. Hooley: —but it would draw the attention of the children to the existence of this document. They could discuss it, teachers could draw attention to it, and the children, in turn, might have some influence on their parents, at any rate at that time of the year. And that is the lime when citizens should be paying attention to their right to be on the register.
I would go further. I believe that a citizen should have a statutory right at any time to claim to be included in the electoral record, with the exception of the brief period between the publication of the notice of an election and the polling day itself. I believe that there are countries where, in substance, this is done, though I cannot, offhand, quote chapter and verse. In a matter so fundamentally important as the franchise, a system should be devised by which a citizen who finds that, by administrative accident or his own oversight, his name is not included, should be able to make a statutory declaration, if necessary before a magistrate or in proper legal form, saying, "Unfortunately, my name has been left off the list. Nevertheless, I am an elector. I reside in such-and-such a street. I require you to register me as an elector" for the constituency, ward or electoral district.
This would not require monstrous administrative arrangements. It could be done. I am quite convinced that in a matter as important as the franchise we are far too casual, far too haphazard in the compilation of the electoral register, and in making certain that all

citizens who have the right to vote can exercise their vote.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has concentrated on the matter of the register. That is the first point on which I wish to comment, although I would not go so far as he does. From my experience at a by-election not long ago, I am pleased that Clause 7 will make provision for amendment of the register for inadvertent omissions from it, because a large number of voters in one street on that occasion found themselves unable to vote and could do nothing about it.
There is a matter concerned with the mechanics of the Bill about which I am displeased. That is the failure of the Government to extend the absent voters arrangements to cover voters who are away on holiday. At the same by-election, a very few days after the middle of September, not hundreds but thousands of my constituents were away from home on holiday and could not get a postal vote. There is strong feeling on this matter among those who are affected. It will be a great pity if we do not take the opportunity given by this Bill to increase the scope of postal voting and put this matter right.
I strongly support what has been said by several hon. Members on both sides of the House about the extension of voting hours. I am particularly pleased to be able to agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), whom I unsuccessfully opposed in a General Election a few years ago. Against that very slight and questionable advantage of people being able to vote in that final hour there are grave disadvantages to be set. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on this matter.
We have made clear from this side of the House—and I am glad that my hon. Friends have been so forceful about it—our opposition to the change in local government elections as provided in Clause 15. Some voters will feel even more remote than they are already from the processes of local government. The provision will limit still further the ranks from which candidates at local authority elections can be drawn. It will restrict the number of professional people who can


stand for election. In both respects this seems exactly the opposite of what we want. I am glad that we on this side of the House will oppose it vigorously.
My last point concerns the first point in the Bill and the main one that we are considering tonight, the reduction of the voting age to 18. I hope that I am not coloured in my views on this by the accident of representing a constituency which contains a university. More important, I hope that hon. Members and the public will not be influenced in making up their minds on this subject by the current publicity given to a very small minority of students, because students as a whole are a small minority of the total age group that we are discussing. We have to look at this age group as a whole and make up our minds about it. I find it exceedingly difficult to make up my mind on this matter.
The Government are going against the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and those of us who were not members of that Conference do not have access to the evidence and arguments which were weighed before coming to a conclusion. Here is one of the few subjects on which there has not been public demonstration in the last few years. There has not been much pressure for votes at 18. Indeed, there is no sign of the Strangers' Gallery bursting at the seams tonight to hear what we are discussing.

Mr. Hamling: Or the House.

Mr. Lane: That is true. The majority of comparable democracies do not have votes for people as young as 18. Yet if we believe that some change is desirable, we do not have to wait until the pressure builds up irresistibly or until we see that the majority of other countries have taken the same step.
It has been generally accepted, though there is some difference of view about it on the benches opposite, that today young people reach maturity, however we define this word, earlier than they did 10 or 20 years ago. This was at the basis of many of the recommendations of the Latey Committee, which are now being incorporated in the Family Law Reform Bill. The Latey Commitee's recommendations and the consequent Bill are

obviously among the main factors that we cannot help taking into account when we are making up our minds on this issue.
A distinction can be drawn between private rights, which were covered by the Latey Committee, and the civic rights that we are discussing on the Bill. There is a clear indication of this in paragraph 25 of the Latey Report, which says that the Committee does.
not accept that the oivic and the private field would or should necessarily go together".
I suggest that we should not exaggerate the degree of separation between them, because the one is very relevant to the other in this connection.
It is also arguable that if a man or woman of 18 is to be still more fully exposed to the majesty of the laws of the land he or she can claim the right to have some say in choosing those who will make those laws. If the Latey recommendations are carried into effect in legislation, and if in future the age of majority for these important purposes covered by the Latey Committee is reduced to 18, it will strike an increasing number of people as odd and wrong that the voting age should not be the same. We shall see building up thereafter pressures which we should perhaps be wiser to forestall by reducing the voting age in line with the age of majority as recommended by the Latey Committee.
Weighing up all the arguments for and against, I come down in favour of the provision in Clause 1, though only by a very small margin, for three other considerations. First, I believe that we in politics have always under-estimated the general astuteness of the electorate. I hope that we shall not make the mistake of under-estimating the shrewdness and judgment of the age group of 18–21 that we are discussing tonight.
Secondly, if the voting age is reduced to 18 I believe that it will help to achieve what we all want—that is, a greater feeling of involvement by young people and a reduction in the current cynicism.
Thirdly—this is a point which was mentioned from the other side of the argument, but it applies to this side of the argument in favour of Clause 1—even if the qualifying age is lowered to 18, the average age of men and women voting


for the first time will be about 20, compared with 23 today.
I appreciate that we on this side are having a free vote.
I add support, finally, to the point eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). It is deplorable that tonight we are debating the Bill in the absence of any commitment by the Government about redistribution as a result of the Boundary Commission. We are getting more and more conscious that jumbo constituencies are emerging. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned one. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) spoke about this problem in an earlier debate.
Each year we are getting further and further from the principle of one man one vote in Parliamentary elections as this discrepancy in size increases. Obviously it will get greater still by several thousands in some cases if Clause 1 is carried into effect. If we decide to reduce the voting age, it becomes even more urgent that the Government should act promptly on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. If they delay, I believe that they will be open to very grievous censure by the House and the country.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) will forgive me if I do not comment on the earlier part of his speech, though I found myself very much in agreement with the latter part. In the two or three minutes at my disposal, I shall comment, first, on the speech of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith)—not in the Chamber at the moment—who accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of bringing in a proposal for votes at 18 simply because he thought that there would be support among young people for the Labour Party.
The hon. Gentleman is referring to the wrong leader of the party in this connection. It was Hugh Gaitskell who, on behalf of the Labour Party in 1959, was responsible for setting up a youth commission under the chairmanship of the present Lord Chancellor. As a member of Transport House staff at the time, I was responsible for servicing that inquiry.

We came out in favour of votes at 18. The conclusions of the inquiry were published just before the General Election in 1959 and, unfortunately, they were lost in the general picture and did not figure largely in that campaign. But that was the date when the Labour Party first came out in favour of votes at 18.
The main argument for lowering the age for the franchise is to be found in the pressures which face young people. I refer principally to the commercial pressures. I believe in the old saying that there should be no taxation without representation. The earning power of young people today is such that they form a very wealthy group. It is not often appreciated that the amount of money in their hands normally on a Thursday or Friday is quite striking, working out in terms of a year at about £1,500 million, which means, roughly, £30 million a week. That is the same amount as we spend on defence, and almost twice as much as we spend on National Health Service costs.
In short, young people have about 8 per cent. of the total national income, which is about £18,000 million. Thus, in a sense, one can regard them as an extremely wealthy group. One has to take deductions into account, of course; they have responsibilities at home, they have to pay taxation and pay for social security benefits, but one is talking about a sum of £900 million, in round figures.
Young people today have a lot of money, and they have the responsibilities which arise from having money. What is more, commercial interests concentrate very much on this section of the market. In that sense, therefore, it is only right that they should have a corresponding say on the political side. There is considerable evidence that the young are exploited commercially. Without wishing to get involved in the argument, I must express a little anxiety about some of the present proposals regarding the age of majority. As young people are independent in the economic sense, if they are to be allowed to enter into hire-purchase contracts and the like, without necessarily having experience in such matters, they may be led into considerable difficulty.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I consider that a distinction ought to be drawn here.


It may be argued that it is not a logical distinction, but I think that there is an element of logic in it. I am happy with the proposal for votes at 18, but I am not sure that it is wise to throw on young people responsibility in hire-purchase and other obligations which flow from what is regarded as the age of maturity.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: One can no more vote against the Second Reading of this Bill than one could vote against the Second Reading of the telephone directory. There is no single principle within it against which one could vote. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) said in opening, the great majority of the Bill's provisions are either actively supported or, at the least, not objected to by all right hon. and hon. Members. Therefore, I shall concentrate as much as I can on those elements in the Bill which are controversial.
There appear to be four: the question of votes at 18; the question of authorised party labels; the abolition of the non-resident and property qualifications for voting and serving on local councils; and the question of polling hours.
I also share the views expressed by more than one of my hon. Friends that the Bill fails to make adequate provision for postal voting, particularly in relation to holidays. One cannot but contrast the Government's eagerness to extend the polling hours with their reluctance to make any concession on postal voting, although the two proposals have a certain relationship to one another. The extension of polling hours, at considerable inconvenience to the staff, and, at any rate in London, with only a marginal utility in respect of votes, could very largely be avoided by more generous provisions for postal voting.
I agree with those of my hon. Friends who said that the provisions for the maximum legitimate expenses in local elections should be more generous than they are. I have more than once warned in the House that where maxima are too low there is a tendency to fudge the accounts. I have given that warning hitherto, I think, in relation to parliamentary elections. The Bill extends the

maxima in relation to those elections, but I am rather of the opinion that the maxima in relation to local elections are too small. The Home Secretary has explained to me that for very good reasons he cannot be here at the winding up speeches. I told him that none the less I might, with great reluctance, be a little critical of him. I accept his explanation that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a more than adequate understudy, and I shall therefore proceed to be mildly disagreeable about the controversial items in the Bill.
I see more than a coincidence in the four controversial points that have emerged. I have already pointed the contrast between the Government's eagerness to extend the polling hours and their reluctance to make concessions in relation to postal voting. But what about the contrast pointed by several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), between the enthusiasm for stopping local electors from voting for the candidate of their choice, in the name of democracy, and the remarkable reticence, amounting to coyness, even disingenuousness, about the Government's refusal to commit themselves to a redistribution of the parliamentary constituencies, so as to ensure that each vote cast has approximately the same value, at whatever inconvenience and injustice to the electors? That, coming from a party which is constantly casting its eyes across St. George's Channel with a noise of rebuke to authorities in Stormont, comes remarkably ill.
Again, one can draw a separate kind of contrast between the enthusiasm to give the vote to 18-year-olds on the basis, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) has just reminded us, of the vast property qualifications which they now represent and the abolition of the rights of voters with a property qualification to vote in local elections in the constituency where they are taxed.
A visitor from Mars might be puzzled at these contrasts, but we are not visitors from Mars. We were not born yesterday. We know perfectly well the reason why the Secretary of State was so complacent in his opening. It is because, in what should have been an uncontroversial Bill, he has managed to introduce about four pieces of political gerrymandering. That


is why he was so good humoured and why the Secretary of State for Scotland is busy writing down his notes like a cat that has been at the cream.

Mr. Hamling: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I have not really got going yet. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has always been very courteous to me, but there is a point here. On at least two of these cases the Government have gone against Mr. Speaker's Conference. This prompts me to say that we must ask ourselves whether we are really sincere when we keep on praising Mr. Speaker and his Conference.
This is the third of three debates. Each time we have paid what we modestly call "tributes" to Mr. Speaker's Conference. I wonder whether we are sincere. I wonder whether we should ask ourselves what Mr. Speaker's Conference is for, what it is about, and how long it can go on if its principal recommendations are being disregarded. My conviction is that Mr. Speaker's Conference has a particular constitutional function, and this is quite irrespective of the question of whether its minutes are published and is not a matter of legitimate controversy, although I have noted with a good deal of sympathy some of the criticisms of the present practice that has emerged in the debate.
As I see it, the sponsors of the theory of Mr. Speaker's Conference have a genuine danger in mind. This is that, in any given Parliamentary situation, one side of the House, in modern conditions elaborately organised and smoothly disciplined—on matters of this kind, of course—is able to take, if it wishes, an electoral advantage, a party advantage, over the side which represents the Opposition. Those who have supported the theory of Mr. Speaker's Conference have done so in the hope, and, up till now, in the belief, that this danger will be circumvented if changes in our constitutional rules and the rules we play of getting in and not getting in are not changed by virtue of a temporary parliamentary democracy, because that way leads to political corruption, gerrymandering, and even, possibly, to tyranny.
I must say that I view the disregard of Mr. Speaker's Conference even in small matters with a good deal of disquiet.

I know it is true—so the right hon. Gentleman need not put this down in his little note book—that there was one point on which I differed from Mr. Speaker's Conference. This was on the recommendation that opinion polls should not be published within 48 hours or so of the election. But that was not a matter of party controversy and I think, therefore, that the Government were entitled, without breaching the general principle I have annunciated, to differ from Mr. Speaker's Conference on this point in toto. I complain of the Bill because, under cover of an uncontroversial Measure, the Government have introduced some serious pieces of political gerrymandering and introduced also a serious breach of political principle. I must apologise for not giving way earlier to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), and I now do so.

Mr. Hamling: I am most grateful. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has sat down at precisely the moment which suits my case, because he has been talking about importing gerrymandering. Surely the abolition of the property qualification, the abolition of absentee voting, is the abolition and not the introduction of gerrymandering.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that it has been called gerrymandering before, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed, if I manage not to overrun myself, with the degree of attention which I give to that problem, but I have not reached it yet.
That brings me in the order of my discussion to votes at 18. I say at once that I am conscious of having made two rather closely related speeches on this topic recently and, with the permission of the House, I will not repeat myself more than is absolutely necessary for the point which I am about to make. It is the fact that I am personally opposed to this proposal. In that I have the misfortune to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and several others of my hon. Friends, but I have the advantage of the powerful support of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).
In a word, my argument is based not upon any lack of maturity at 18, as to


which dogmatism is probably out of place, but upon the conviction that there is a case for a period of time after maturity, of which three years is prima facie not a bad period, in which to go about the world getting experience before one is held to one's contracts, before one makes an irreparable mistake in marriage and even before one has what I still regard as the privilege, as well as the right, of the parliamentary franchise.
Having heard the debates about this, I believe that I might well be in the minority on this point, even though the matter were committed to a free vote of the House. Nobody would be happier than I if that were the case than that I should yield, as I always do, to the opinion of the majority, but I must confess that I regard the Government's decision to put on the party Whips as a parliamentary outrage.
After all, Mr. Speaker's Conference came to a contrary conclusion. What is being done here is that experienced and universally respected hon. Members from all parties, including the party opposite which, I suppose, formed the majority of Mr. Speaker's Conference, respected, universally honoured and experienced members of the party opposite among others, are being dragooned by the Whips into the Lobby contrary to their expressed and published opinion. I cannot see the necessity for this.
The Home Secretary said that this was a matter upon which the Government should give advice. But I cannot see for the life of me why the Government should give advice. Do they seriously think that their own supporters are not sufficiently prudent in political matters to come to a conclusion upon this topic of their own accord? Or are the Government, like a raddled political courtesan, so apprehensive of the possible results of seeking the embrace of an electorate which has already shown un-mistakeable signs of disliking their haggard and meretricious approach, that they try to take refuge among the inexperienced and the gullible and, not content with the art of seduction, have now descended to the practice of rape?
It may be that the young are more idealistic than the old, among whom I am beginning to class myself. I have not noticed this in my life. I have noticed

that they are more easily led to strange causes of one sort or another. I do not think they are more or less idealistic than the old. Some people get better as they grow older and other people get worse as they grow older—and I do not pretend to say into which category I fall.

Mr. English: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could only produce the sort of sentence he gave us earlier after a prolonged reading of Gibbon. Does he recollect that, upon this issue, the electorate accepted our embraces with considerable affection?

Mr. Hogg: But they will never do so again, not in my lifetime, and I hope to live till I am one hundred.
That brings me to the question of party labels. Here I must confess to a modest change of heart. I started with a prejudice in favour of this proposal. I thought that there was a good deal to be said here, and what is more I think that the electorate would like it. I am bound to say that having seen the proposals in the Bill I have changed my mind. Anything which takes four pages and a bit of a Schedule and a page and a half of Statute to explain cannot be very good electoral practice. When I learned by penetrating this thicket that did not include any provision for local elections, which is the only area in which it would do any good, I turned against this proposal in rather a big way.
I am bound to reflect, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, that the extended power it will give to the central party machines is not intrinsically a good thing. But surely it is wrong to give parties a copyright in names? Why should not someone who thinks that I am either a dangerous Socialist or a wet Liberal call himself a true Conservative? I have no doubt that somebody will try to do so, and I do not see why he should not. If someone does not think that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) represents the true McCoy of Gladstonian liberalism, why should he not get up and say, "I stand as a Gladstonian Liberal"?
What about the fancy names? Why not have God's Candidate, or the People's Candidate or the Queen's Candidate? These things are all right if people do it off their own bat, but once they get the


imprint of some mysterious central registrar, with a stamp showing that they have paid the requisite fee for this title, they will get some kind of official blessing. On the whole, I believe that the whole proceeding has become more trouble than it is likely to be worth, and I am against it.
Being so disgustingly old I am bound now to have my revenge over a debate we held 20 years ago, when we last discussed this matter. Then the party opposite destroyed what was a very harmless, and to my mind very convenient practice, which would have rendered this proposal wholly unnecessary. During the greater part of my adult life, candidates issued to electors, as part of their free election material, a thing which was called a polling card. It is not what we call a polling card today because it contained one's name in thick type with a nice fat cross against it to show exactly what one expected the elector to do when he got into the polling booth.
At local elections, when, as we heard, there are often 18 to 20 candidates, this was a very convenient practice. The party opposite, despite my warning, treated this as a very undemocratic process. They thought the electors were so open to suggestion that once they saw the name of "Hogg" with a cross against it, they would all flock to do what Hogg required, forgetting that there was another set of polling cards which said exactly the opposite at the disposal of every other candidate. If we would only go back to the system which should never have been disturbed, the whole of this party label business would be rendered unnecessary and all the objection to it would disappear. The 4¼ pages of Schedule and the 1½ pages of close print would be omitted.
That leads me to the question of local franchise. It contains the two salient examples in the Bill of a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the rules of elections in the brief moment of party supremacy which remains to hon. Members opposite. I beg them even now to think better of this device. I have seldom known meanness to pay in politics. The public remembers and resents it. I agree with my hon. and right hon. Friends that the lesser of these two proposals—that is, the question of the vote—contravenes

the principle of no taxation without representation.
I look to the hon. Member for Horn-church, to defy his party Whips and to vote with us in Committee in support of the principle which he advocated so eloquently. It is very strange that the grammar schoolboy should be given the vote at the local election at 18 and that the person who will be taxed by rates in the constituency will have it taken away. I wonder what justification for the proposal exists, except for the absurd preoccupation of hon. Members opposite with the mere fact of residence.
There was a saying in, I believe, the Talmud that where a man's heart is there is his treasure also, and where a man's treasure is there is his heart also. But I cannot say that it is necessarily true that where a man's bed is there is his treasure also or, for that matter, his heart. Without endeavouring to show the wanton idealism which, as a result of this debate, I have come to associate with grey hairs, I am bound to say that I fail to see the logic of this approach.
So far as the vote is concerned, the matter is relatively inoffensive because it is relatively unimportant. It only breaches a fundamental principle, and that the Government do every day of the week. Therefore, we need not pay much attention to it. The result will be relatively small. But I should have thought that even this Government would have thought twice before limiting the supply of qualified candidates eager and able to serve in local government.
Although, as the House knows, I have had no direct experience of local government, I have always thought that this House derived a great deal of its virility from the fact that we have never made the mistake of the American Congress of insisting that electors could vote only for their neighbours residing in the same electoral district. That was a great error of the Founding Fathers and I have never ceased to rejoice that we never made it, even though the origins of our liberality of practice may not have been wholly respectable.
We were challenged by one hon. Member opposite on the meaning of "democracy". But when is it democratic to prevent electors from choosing the candidate of their choie whether or


not he dwells within the electoral boundaries? Of course, I recognise that there have been limitations heretofore.

Mr. Hamling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hogg: That is a fair point. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West is entitled to his crusty Conservatism if he wishes to embrace it. I only say that I am not quite as crusted as that and I question the principle, at any rate, even in its present application.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, in opening the debate, say that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were more, and not less, liberal than the status quo. But what can be the advantage of denying the electors of a local constituency the right to continue to support those who have served them well and who present themselves for re-election?
That kind of meanness is endemic in the party opposite. They did it over the London boroughs, depriving them of the vote for a whole year. It did not pay them then. It will not pay them now. The under-18s will vote against them; the extra hour at the polls will not benefit them; the various changes in party labels will give them no advantage, and the local constituencies will continue to elect councils which drive the Labour Party where they deserve—into the wilderness.

9.24 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): This was a quiet, sedate, businesslike debate until the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) got up and promised us that he would be the cream in my winding-up coffee. He certainly livened up the debate and completed his peroration by telling us that the under-18s would vote against us.

Mr. Hogg: An Amendment will be introduced in Committee.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us warning that he will produce that Amendment.
If we were to decide exactly what changes were made in electoral law on the basis of party political advantage, I doubt very much whether the proposals

in the Bill would be the ones that we would bring forward.
I resent very much the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that there is here serious political gerrymandering. He must know that that is abusive exaggeration, some of the other kind of laughter that he himself put into it. He did not mean us to take him seriously. For whatever reason, that was the approach that he decided to adopt to the debate. Anything is good enough for a laugh and for brightening us up at this time of night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I hope that hon. Members opposite will allow me to reply to the debate in my own way. I am sure that although the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree entirely with everything I have said, he does not object to the way I have said it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was difficult to be dogmatic about votes at 18. That is perfectly true. We must, however, appreciate that we have had evidence from the Latey Commission and of the interests of young people that this is a change that it was right to make.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) suggested that young people are more idealistic, and I believe that they are. He said, however, that the young people in Scotland and in Wales would vote nationalist. I am not interested how they vote. I am interested in whether I think they are sufficiently mature to be granted this right. I am satisfied of our ability on this side of the House to persuade them how to use their vote in the right way at the right time. It is not a question of party advantage. If a proposal is put forward with the idea of securing party advantage it is one of the surest ways of ensuring that such advantage will not be gained.
We had the suggestion that if the Government make up their mind to do a thing the last thing that they should do is to put Whips on. I have been in the House for 22 years and have heard this argument about free votes time and time again—when it is to the advantage of people putting forward the argument. It is a new idea that if anything concerns constitutional change there must be a free vote. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that on many occasions we have dealt on the Floor of


the House and in Committee with matters of constitutional change when there has not been a free vote. It is wrong to talk about hon. Members being unwillingly dragooned by the Whips.
It is wrong to suggest that there is anything sinister about the Government's making up their mind on certain serious proposals, proclaiming those proposals to the House and asking their supporters to join them in the Lobby. I am grateful that there have been indications that many hon. Members opposite agree that what the Government are doing is right. If I did not think that what the Government were doing was right I should not be proclaiming it in this way.

Sir D. Glover: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that we are here dealing with a totally different proposition? Nobody objects to the Government's forcing their business through on a Whip, but in this case we are dealing with a question which was referred by the House to Mr. Speaker's Conference—Mr. Speaker being the most distinguished servant of the House—and in respect of which certain conclusions were reached by that conference. The House is now being asked to ignore those conclusions. Surely this is a supreme example of an occasion when we should have a free vote.

Mr. Ross: That point was raised in our last debate. It is wrong to suggest that because a conference of any kind—and I appreciate the importance of Mr. Speaker's Conference—comes to certain conclusions, and the Government subsequently think it right to carry through certain changes which do not conform with some of those conclusions, they are doing something wrong. We are not denying the right of the House to know what the Speaker's Conference did. The question of secrecy is a matter of tradition. What we try to achieve is a consensus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. It does not mean that if a Government think that a certain thing should be done they should not seek to do it.
If hon. Members change this tradition they are changing the whole form of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and that is not a satisfactory way to deal with the matter. The small amount of disagreement that there has been with the findings of the conference indicates its value.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that some people get worse as they get older.
As for party labels, I cannot ignore the fact that to an increasing extent the public has been led to conclude that it is the party that matters. One of my hon. Friends deplored the fact that we had party political broadcasts. Equally, this is an indication of the importance that the major parties attach to the existence of parties and of proclaiming parties. We have newspapers producing Gallup Polls, National Opinion Polls and the rest. They do not mention the name of a single candidate. How, then, are people to vote? It is the major parties which are mentioned, and we spend the five years between elections building up the parties. However, when people go to the polling stations, they are confronted with only the names of candidates.
A number of points relating to this matter were raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) suggested that the scheme of registration for which the Bill provides was unnecessarily elaborate and that it would be enough to amend the law so as to enable posters to be displayed at polling stations indicating which parties the candidates represented. Superficially, that suggestion has its attractions, but when more than one candidate claims to represent a party, or two labels are almost identical, difficulties arise. In such circumstances, there is the risk of electors being confused or misled.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone seeking to register himself as a Gladstonian Liberal or a True-Blue Conservative from so doing. But, it must be remembered that anyone who seeks to become a candidate has first to produce £150. Now we are told that the fee for registration will deter people from putting themselves forward. There is no indication that it will be a burdensome fee, but hon. Members will appreciate what is involved in fighting an election even in the smallest constituency.
Those considerations apart, we have also to consider the practical difficulties which arise if candidates are permitted to put up their own posters in polling stations. If that is not to happen, is it suggested that the returning officers should do it? They may be local officials


and, as a result, they will be brought into politics. While the suggestion is an attractive one superficially, it is one which must be ruled out.
A number of hon. Members referred to local elections, and I agree that, if we could get a scheme for party labels at local elections, it should be adopted. But again, we have to appreciate the difficulties. It may be that hon. Members have some ideas on the subject. If they have, we shall be glad to hear them in Committee. If we can get a practical scheme, I think that we should take advantage of it. But no one should underestimate the difficulties. I have in mind constituencies like my own, which consist of a county area and at least four burghs. The Conservatives in the four burghs call themselves by at least six different names.

Mr. Hamling: They all stink the same.

Mr. Ross: There can be confusion, even in registration. Registration would need to be done locally rather than nationally, and we cannot see a way of duplicating in local areas the kind of good organisation which will come from the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who will handle it on a national scale.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend not concede that it would be possible to have a system of local registration under which the existence of a registered party name at a central level could be taken as conclusive proof of registration locally?

Mr. Ross: It is not a permanent register. We have just had municipal by-elections in some parts of Scotland and I doubt whether any candidate stood representing the Conservative Party. This is a matter of tradition. They stand as Progressive, Moderate, Ratepayers' Association, and a multiplicity of other local names. I assure my hon. Friend that it would be difficult to work his suggestion.
Away from the party label question, we come to the matter of the registration process. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was concerned about the accuracy of the register. Bearing in mind that when the register is first put out it is about 96 per cent. accurate, it must be the most

accurate of its type in the world. Electoral registration officers are, naturally, anxious to improve it even further, and perhaps the changes that we are making will do this.
Some play was made about the power which we are giving to electoral registration officers to correct mistakes. I wish to make it clear that this is not a question of names being added when people have failed to take their chances when the register was first prepared and was then available for inspection. Mistakes may be made, either by the printer or the officer. These can be put right—the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will be interested in this—and the lists of corrections in these cases will be made available to the public and others who are interested.
Considering all the facts, I suggest that we have everything to congratulate ourselves on the completeness of our register. We have a widespread scheme of publicity through television, radio and the Press. I assure the House that we will be prepared to look into any idea for improving this state of affairs.
Remarks have been made about so-called "political gerrymandering" in connection with Clause 15 and the change which we have made in connection with the abolition of the property qualification in England and Wales. Naturally, this does not apply in Scotland, because we have already wiped it out there. I refer to the qualification of a candidate by virtue of an ownership of land or property. At present, it means that someone living in London and owning a grave in Liverpool—or any other piece of land—is entitled, by virtue of that ownership, to become a candidate in a local election. I agree that this may seem to be an exaggeration, but it is the truth of the position.
The special qualification relates only to becoming a candidate, and somebody can become a candidate without being empowered to vote. Everyone will agree that this state of affairs should come to an end. Most of the non-residents who become candidates do so on the basis of getting on to the electoral roll by virtue of the non-resident provision. What does this mean? I have with me a copy of the relevant form. It says that for registration a non-resident local government elector on the qualifying date must


be a British subject or citizen of the Irish Republic—for this purpose Commonwealth citizens are British subjects—and must be in occupation, either as owner or tenant, of rateable lands and heritages of a yearly value of not less than £10. He must be 21 or over, or will be by 15th June next. That is the present position.
But companies and public bodies do not have this vote. The fact that companies or public bodies, or the like, occupy land and heritages does not entitle their officers and members, as such, to be registered. That means that a very limited number of people get this privilege. The number of voters in England and Wales is about 32 million, but the number who get the vote in this particular way is only about 130,000. The number is very small indeed. Therefore, when we work it out, it will be appreciated that only very few people have this privilege, so to suggest that wiping away that privilege is gerrymandering is a bit nonsensical.
To remove this privilege means that we take people off the electoral roll. It means that people who, at present, can stand as candidates will not be able to do so. But there is nothing to prevent their standing as candidates in the area in which they reside. I have listened often, and learned a lot from that listening, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking about the family, about the Englishman's home being his castle. Surely, in this case, where the family home is, and where his residence is, is the right place for a man to exercise his rights. We have come back away from this business of property qualification, of the financial test in relation to the vote, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think again about this matter.
I am satisfied that what we are doing is absolutely right. If people want to continue to serve it is far better that they get their qualification in the city, the town or the county in which they will presume to become rulers and governors. The Parliamentary position, of course, is entirely different: we are dealing here with local government. It becomes absolutely clear that this step is right.
It was suggested that it was only right that those with the financial stake should

become, through that privilege, elected members determining the educational standards for all the people in the area; should determine exactly the standards for roads, and everything else. That is quite wrong. To suggest that in, say, Glasgow, if we wipe out this special privilege it will not be possible, out of the million citizens there, to find 12 men to replace these privileged people does not say very much for the Conservative and Unionist Party in that city. I know that this is something that applies to all parties, and that we may well be affected in our party, but I am quite satisfied that we will be able to find the right candidates.

Mr, Lubbock: I am not disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, but why has he not taken the opportunity of the Bill to integrate the City of London with one of its neighbours so that the remaining property qualification there is eliminated?

Mr. Ross: We are not dealing here with joining two constituencies together under the Bill, but I have a note of what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
One of my hon. Friends asked: why treat London differently? The answer is that it is so unique. Here, the number of electors would be about 7,000, and most of them would be caretakers, security people, and the rest.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone got rather mixed when he referred to the Maud Committee. That Committee did not relate to franchise, but purely and simply to a person becoming a candidate. That Committee said that everyone who worked in an area could become a candidate in that area. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] This would swamp the thing and we would not get local representation. What we want is identity and local representation.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the electors should not choose whom they want to have? Why should he select the group out of which they have to choose?

Mr. Ross: This would mean that there would be no limitation. I look forward to the right hon. and learned Gentleman putting forward an Amendment like that and justifying it to the people in every


town and village in the country. It would be quite wrong. What we want is local interest and local identity.

Sir Lionel Heald: rose—

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members intervening at the same time.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend said that this was not like Parliamentary elections, but does he not agree that our proposal for local elections is like Parliamentary elections? We do not allow alien taxpayers to vote or to stand for Parliament. Anyone outside the jurisdiction of the election has not the right to vote. Surely he will agree that the Opposition are putting forward an anomolous case?

Mr. Ross: The Opposition are living completely in the past. They are going back to the old ideas about property qualifications, financial status, and the rest before people could have a vote. We are doing the right thing. To call this gerrymandering is to deny the meaning of words.

Sir L. Heald: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing to prevent him as an alien from standing in my constituency at the next General Election?—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not an alien."] Yes, he is a Scotsman. It is not a fact that there is no limitation of this great and wonderful attachment the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking of in Parliament? Why should we have it in local government?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the right hon. and learned Member that there is no danger of the eventuality he spoke about, because the people of Kilmarnock would not allow me to leave Kilmarnock.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington about how to adjudicate fairness in respect of a political broadcast during an election, we are trying to follow through a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that there should be fairness and that it should be seen to be fair. This obligation is laid on those conducting these broadcasts or television programmes. If they do not meet the obligation they might be guilty of an illegal practice under the Bill. Hav-

ing placed this provision in the Bill we have to rely on their good sense. I am certain that a matter of 10 seconds more for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone might be considered an advantage to the others on the programme rather than a disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) asked me to say whether Clause 15 applies to Scotland. Part of the Clause applies to Scotland, but the property qualification does not at the moment apply to Scotland, so that the part which abolishes that qualification is not necessary in Scotland; but the part dealing with non-resident franchise applies there.
As to the timetable for the Bill, during the debate on 14th October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs said that the Government's intention was
to complete the consideration of the Bill and of the affirmative Representation of the People Regulations in time to include any new age group upon which the House may decide in the register of electors to be published in February, 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 49–50.]
If the new form A is to be ready for circulation to registration officers in time to prepare for the canvassing, the relevant regulations must be approved by the end of May. We would like to get the Bill out of the Commons by Christmas and on to the Statute Book by Easter.
I want to make one final point in case somebody thinks I am dodging it. This is about postal voting, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. This matter has been considered before, in a Private Member's Bill recently.
When people will take their holidays is unpredictable. It would be very difficult to regulate this, but it was estimated that it would mean a considerable increase in the number of people having postal votes. It would mean that an extension of time would need to be allowed to the electoral registration officer for issuing forms. At the moment, I think it is 12 days. It would need to be at least 18 days. This would affect the timing of the election. Because of that, and because of the confusion and difficulties which would arise,


this has hitherto been ruled out. This is why we rule it out now.

Miss Quennell: Can the Secretary of State say whether the 3 million extra voters envisaged as a result of a lowering of the voting age by Clause 1 will in any way delay the implementation of the Boundary Commission's proposals?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that the two things are entirely related. We have not yet got the report of the Boundary Commission. It is difficult to say what we should do about that until we get it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked as though there was at present some strange uniformity in every constituency. This is not so. He said that we were departing from the one man, one vote principle, or from the weight of one vote for each person, by introducing this and creating a further imbalance. He should know that it takes fewer votes to elect a Member of Parliament for a county constituency than for an urban one.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should study the rules. There are some small constituencies in Scotland. This arises from the present rules. I would not like to see changes made here. I hope that he does not have false ideas about what the present position is. I am satisfied with what we have here.
I believe that the workmanlike changes we are making by the Bill will improve the position and I am glad to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Committee Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Road Traffic may he entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to local government elections in Great Britain, it is expedient—

(1) if amendments relating to the parliamentary or local government franchise, the place or manner of voting at parliamentary or local government elections or the conduct of those elections increase the registration expenses of registration officers, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

 (a)in the case of expenses of registration officers in Great Britain, of any additional sums payable by way of rate-support grant because of the increase, or because of any provision for the increase to be taken into account in the years 1969–70 and 1970–71 by amendment of the orders relating to the grant; and
(b)in the case of expenses of registration officers in Northern Ireland, of the addition to the sums which under the Representation of the People Act 1949 are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament on account of those expenses; and
(2)if any such amendments increase the amount of the sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund under the Representation of the People Act 1949 on account of the charges of returning officers at parliamentary elections, to authorise the increase in that charge; and
(3)if provision is made for the registration of political descriptions in order to allow their use on nomination papers and ballot papers at parliamentary elections, to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in connection with the register by the authority charged with maintaining it; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received in that connection by that authority; and
(4) to authorise the recoupment to local authorities out of the Consolidated Fund of amounts by which their expenses in connection with superannuation are increased by reason of fees which are or have been paid under the Representation of the People Acts as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

10.0 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I shall not delay the House more than a moment, but, in the context of the question raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) about expenses in Parliamentary elections, I


wish to know whether the Money Resolution is drawn so tightly that Amendments to increase the amount of expenses in both local government and Parliamentary elections would be permitted in committee.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): If the hon. Gentleman is referring to extra costs which would come under

paragraph (3) of the Money Resolution relating to extra costs for party labels in local elections, the Resolution is not drawn broadly enough to cover that question. It is not our wish to shelter behind this technicality, or to prevent general discussion on the point, and, if it were thought necessary, we should take the necessary steps by drawing up a supplemental Motion to make it possible.

Question put and agreed to.

HIGHWAY CODE

10.2 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled the Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 44 thereof.
First, I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on her appointment to her new assignment. I am sure that the House will agree that transport debates and Questions will have a new dimension of brightness with her arrival, and I am sure, also, that my right hon. Friend would wish me to say that he is delighted to have back his former shadow.
The White Paper, Road Safety—A Fresh Approach, published last year announced, among other things, the Government's intention to publish a new edition of the Highway Code. That promise is now being carried out. The last edition of the code was published in 1959, and a new version is, therefore, long overdue.
The House would expect this code to be very different from the last one, and it will not be disappointed. This difference is not only a matter of appearance—a taller, slimmer shape, a different typeface, and different illustrations. The code has been revised and rewritten from start to finish.
This thorough revision was badly needed. Since 1959, the number of vehicles on the roads has nearly doubled, and, even allowing for the effect of the breathalyser, casualties also, unfortunately, have increased. There have been many new ideas in road safety, and many new laws and regulations. For example, we now have annual testing for all cars three years or more old. We have a new overall speed limit of 70 m. p.h., and we have seen the introduction of lower, tailor-made speed limits on stretches of road where the accident record suggested they were needed. We have new regulations on the standards of safety for tyres and, in particular, on tread depth. We have regulations requiring seat belts to be fitted, as from the end of this year, in all cars first registered since the beginning of 1965. We have seen the introduction of the

breathalyser and the impact it has made on casualties.
This is not all. There have been changes in the way we use the roads—the recent rules for roundabouts are a good example. Since 1959, there has been a much greater use of traffic engineering techniques, particularly in our towns. There has been much use of one-way streets and of other measures to help traffic, such as lane lines, direction arrows, and box junctions.
Since 1959, we have seen a great growth in parking controls, particularly by meters and yellow lines. There have been changes in the equipment in cars, particularly in signalling. Semaphore signals are almost a thing of the past. Now, almost everybody uses direction indicators and keeps his hand and arm snugly inside the car. Three years ago a new system of traffic signs, based on continental standards, was introduced.
These features are all part of the contemporary scene. The Highway Code is a basic source of information for all road users, and it is right that it should hold as much up-to-date information as possible. The revised code therefore takes account of all this new material; indeed, about one-third of the text, and all the illustrations, are new material.
A second reason for rewriting the code was that the Road Research Laboratory found that the present code could not be properly understood by some road users. It was too brief, and it used too many long words. In this revision we have, therefore, tried to spell things out and explain step by step; to explain technical terms whenever we cannot avoid them altogether; and generally to make the text even clearer and more easily understood.
The new code has been prepared by my Department. There were three main streams of contributions. First, we have had many suggestions from members of the public about how the 1959 Code might be improved. We have examined them all, and we are very grateful to those people who have shown their interest in road safety in this very practical way. The second main contribution came from my Department, many divisions of which have contribution to the new text at various times. Third, we have had a most valuable collection of ideas and


views earlier this year from other Government Departments and, not least, about 60 independent organisations representing various road-user interests.
We are very grateful to everybody who took trouble to submit comments to the Department. We could possibly have produced a code without their help, but I am sure that, but for their comments, it would not have been the very satisfactory job which I consider I am submitting to the House.
I should like to say a few words about the future revision of the code. The House may feel, with me, that nine years is far too long between new editions of the code. Given the pace of change in road and traffic conditions now we need to keep the code up to date much more briskly. A Minister cannot, of course, bind his successors, but it seems to me that our aim in future should be a new code at least every five years.
Even this may not be fast enough for some desirable changes in the code which might well have to be made within this time. Ministers of Transport cannot make changes to it without bringing the whole code before the House, and when we do that the House has to accept or reject the code as a whole. It is not possible at present to make changes in individual rules if these are urgently needed.

Mr. David Webster: I accept this point, and rather regret it. But will signs be dealt with in the same way? I am thinking of the automatic level crossing sign, which was condemned by the Hixon inquiry. Can such signs be amended, and not be taken as part of the text?

Mr. Brown: I take the point, and, clearly, the hon. Gentleman has seen it. We have it in mind. This is precisely why I am stressing that it may well be that we shall need to give urgent consideration to the question of the Highway Code and revisions. I shall be interested to hear what right hon. and hon. Members have to say on this topic tonight, or, after reflection, at a later date.
The House will see that the code is divided into six main sections which advise particular road users—for example, drivers or pedestrians—or deal with particular situations—for example,

motorway driving or using railway level crossings. This is almost the same as the basic pattern of the 1959 code.
The advice for pedestrians in the present code is sound and well tested. Very little of it has been basically changed in the new code, although six new rules have been added. I would like to refer particularly to Rule 8—about crossing the road from behind a parked vehicle. This expands advice in the present code. About a quarter of the pedestrians who are killed or seriously injured have come out from behind a stationary vehicle. As the House might expect, we have had more casualties for this reason over the last few years because there are more cars parked at the side of the road. It is no longer realistic to advise people to cross the road where there are no parked vehicles. Rule 8 recognises this, and gives advice tailored to present-day conditions.
The part of the code which has been most changed is that for the road user on wheels. It is more than twice the size of the equivalent section in the old code—82 rules compared to 40. It has been almost entirely rewritten, and the rules have been grouped into a more logical and consistent pattern.
Some of the individual changes which have been made are important, and I will now let the House know more about them.
Rule 31 introduces the "routine mirror-signal-manoeuvre" which drivers should use when they are overtaking, or turning, or slowing down, or stopping. It may seem an obvious little drill. It is—and anyone who has been taught driving well will use it automatically. But there are still many people who do not know it, or use it, and we therefore thought it best to put it in the code.
Rule 35 deals with the distances which should be left between vehicles when they are travelling on the road. This is important. There would be far fewer multiple collisions, especially on motorways, if drivers kept safe distances apart. When the Ministry sought the views of outside bodies on the draft code we particularly asked for their advice on this rule. We wished to explore whether the separation distances should be shown in yards for each mile per hour of speed, or one car length for every 10 m.p.h., or in some other way.
Opinions were fairly evenly divided. Since a yard is a standard length, and car lengths can vary, we concluded that it was better to advise a gap of one yard for each mile per hour of speed as a normal working rule. The House will notice, however, that the illustration of stopping distances on the back cover of the code show these distances in feet and in average car lengths. I hope, therefore, that the way we have done it will be able to suit both kinds of people—those who can reckon distance in yards and feet, and those who need something more vivid, like average car lengths on the road, to help them.
Rule 95, which says that the flashing of headlamps has the same meaning as sounding the horn—to let another road user know one is there—may be a disappointment to some people. The Ministry particularly asked interested organisations for their advice on this, because some manufacturers have fitted special headlamp flashers to their cars, and because there has been considerable discussion about the advantages of having an approved code of headlamp signals. I see that this is still going on in all kinds of quarters, some from which one hardly expects it, and different views are passionately held.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Would it not be better to lay down a headlamp flashing rule that there are two methods of flashing, one showing, "I am coming through at speed" and the other showing, "I am pulling up and, therefore, you can pass me"?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree. How are we to determine when a flashing headlamp means, "I am coming through at speed" and when it means, "I am slowing up and you can come through"? That is precisely what the argument is about.
The general feeling of those we consulted was against having a special code. They came down for the proposition that the flashing of headlamps meant no more than to show other people that one was there. Rule 95, therefore, maintains that line. Motorway driving has special problems and some special rules are needed. The motorway section, therefore, particularly deals with only motorway points, but the heading to the section also shows that some rules for ordinary driving apply

to motorways as well. Rules 121 to 123 explain the present warning amber light signals on motorways, and explain and illustrate the new signals which are being installed on urban and rural motorways.
I will not deal now with the rules for cyclists. I understand that some hon. Members may wish to raise points on the cycling section and, if so, I will, with the leave of the House, deal with them towards the close of the debate.
I refer now to the section on the road user and animals, in which there are very few changes. The advice to horse riders has been amplified to include those leading a horse while riding another. We understood that some horse riders were in doubt about the correct procedure, and to help remove this doubt Rule 138 now advises them to keep to the left.
The section about the road user and railway level crossings is completely new. Because there are many kinds of railway level crossings in this country, this section now gives advice on how to use all types of crossings—crossings with gates or full barriers, open level crossings with or without warning lights, and automatic half-barrier level crossings. The advice on automatic half-barriers in Rules 147 to 150 adopts recommendations of the court of inquiry into the accident at Hixon. My right hon. Friend has announced that work is going ahead on the design of a new model of automatic half-barrier crossing, and this will include changes in the wording of the notice shown in the illustration on pages 32 and 33. Some other work is going ahead on modifications of existing crossings, for example, box junction markings and double white lines are being introduced.
We carefully considered whether the code should show a new crossing, but to wait for this would have held up the introduction of the code, which has already been too long in appearing, for at least some months more. In any case, there are 200 crossings of the present design in use daily. On balance, it seemed best to show existing crossings, as this is the situation which drivers have to face, and get the code out for the benefit of the millions of drivers who need to use the other advice in it.
The section on the law's demands has also been revised and brought up to date.


It is not part of the code proper which the House is asked to approve, but is included so that the road user can see the most important parts of the law which affect him on the road.
If the House approves the code tonight, and if it is similarly approved in another place next week, we will be going ahead with arrangements for bulk printing and distribution. I say "bulk" advisedly, for about 10 million of the last edition were sold, and 14 million issued free. We expect that at least 6 million copies of the code will be needed during 1969. The code must have just about the largest distribution of any publication after the Bible—which is appropriate enough for the road users' "bible". It will not, therefore, be possible to have the code on sale for some weeks. But we expect that it can be available in the first half of next February.
In presenting the code I thank everybody who has helped to produce it. I now commend the code to the House. We have seen over the last year that road accidents and casualties can be significantly reduced. The breathalyser has been a success. The problem now is to keep up the momentum. We can do this by studying and learning the code, and following its advice every time we use the roads. If we do this life will be immeasurably safer for us all.
As my right hon. Friend's introduction on page 2 says:
The Code is not theory. It's a mine of practical down-to-earth advice. It's a pocket life-saver.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that no fewer than 20 hon. Members wish to speak. The debate ends in one hour and 40 minutes' time.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: May I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that this side of the House takes note of his kind remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and very much appreciates them. She will deal with him and the Minister in due course.
May I also say that, although there is very little party politics in tonight's discussion, there is, I think he will find, intense feeling. One aspect of this is the

feeling by the British Road Federation and cyclists that they have not been adequately consulted. I appreciate that they have received a copy of what the Minister has referred to as "the bible"—the "new translation", but so far no adequate consultation has taken place between the Minister and them.
In 1959, it cost 6d. for a very slim document produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). It contained 94 sections. This edition costs Is. 3d. and contains 150 sections. I wonder what Mr. Aubrey Jones would think of the justification for the price increase. We have the road signs at the back, but there were a considerable number of such signs at the back of the previous code. I would not think that there is any justification for a 150 per cent. increase, making a 250 per cent. increase on the previous cost.
I agree that we have either to accept the whole of this code or to reject it in toto. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that, at least, the signs can be put right or amended, may be in another place and thereby amended in the code. I am particularly thinking of the low-flying tintacks which represent a level crossing of the half-barrier type. They look like a lot of tintacks and do not give any indication that it is a level crossing. I hope that that can be put right, particularly as the Hixon court of inquiry recommended a change of that sign.
When the Minister says that this is a streamlined code, I wonder. A lot of the increase has been in verbosity, and many people, particularly the young, will be very reluctant to read a great deal of it.
On the subject of the young, can the Minister say that free copies will be issued to schools or to people going in for the cyclist's proficiency test, which is very important? It is essential that free copies should be given in such cases. Perhaps he can tell us that there will be a subsidy given to local authorities to assist here.
To return to verbosity, the new code says, in Section 29, under the heading of "Driving along":
Keep to the left, except when you intend to overtake, or turn right, or when you have to pass stationary vehicles or pedestrians in the road. Allow others to overtake you if they want to.


The old version is:
When driving along, keep well to the left except when you intend to overtake or turn right. Do not hug the middle of the road".
It seems that in the new version there are many extra words, but not a very great improvement in meaning. Brevity would have been splendid, and I wish that a first-class editor had worked on the subject.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) is a keen pedestrian, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is, and they will probably wish to address the House about pedestrians. Some sections of the code deal with using the left side of the road and other sections deal with using the right side. If one is marching troops along the road, one marches them on the left. According to Rule 138, when riding a horse, one keeps to the left. However according to Rule 139, if one is leading animals, one leads them on the right. There is a good deal of unhappiness among the British Horse Society on this matter. However, I think that the code as drafted is correct and that the person leading the animal should be between it and the movement of traffic. But that is a personal view and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will think it incorrect.
There is a nice illustration at the bottom of page 4 of the new code. If one is leading a lady in the dark, one leads her on the right. If she should suddenly kick, she kicks the hedge and not the traffic. That may be humane. I do not see the philosophy of this matter.
Looking at the various rules in the code and saying that this one is good or that one is bad is like looking at a wine list. Page 5 deals with the right of pedestrians to use zebra crossings. There is no reference to the studs. Would it not have been helpful to say, as I have always been taught, that one should not step on the pedestrian crossing if a vehicle has crossed the studs? I do not disagree about the legal liability.
Then we come to the subject of flashing lamps on top of vehicles—and I do not mean flashing lights, to which I shall refer later. There is reference to this matter in Rule 36. I think that all hon. Members who frequently drive to their constituencies have seen abuses of these lights. Often drivers of breakdown

vehicles do not know that they are not allowed to use these lights except when at the site of an accident. When going to an accident, they are not supposed to use them. If it is a police car or an ambulance, the situation is different. Enforcement of the law relating to flashing lights should be tightened up. Any garage which is breaking the law should be so informed and warned.
Rule 38 refers to stationary mobile shops. I should have thought that stationary buses are equally dangerous. There is no mention of something which the bus driver who taught me to drive always insisted on, namely, that when a person passes one of these vehicles he should try to look underneath to see whether there are feet on the other side because pedestrians, particularly young pedestrians, have a very high rate of acceleration and this is the only way of being sure that there is no one there.
I agree that when turning at road junctions one should give way to pedestrians who are crossing. But this part of the code is more regarded in its abuse than in its observation. This is a matter which should be brought home more often in the driving test. I have two young people in my family in the middle of having driving tests, so I should declare an interest. I should like them to be told about this.
Rule 54 deals with diagonal white lines. I do not disagree with what is in the code, but I wonder whether it would be possible to have a code for highway engineers so that there is not an excessive amount of pyjama stripes up and down the main road? Much greater use is being made of the pyjama stripe and people will probably begin to abuse it once they have got used to it.
Rule 59 deals with overtaking in a three-lane road. This is not a dual carriageway. An overtaking vehicle using the trafficator, particularly in what in Scotland is called the gloaming, in half light or fog, can be useful in indicating the way in which it is going. I would wish that it were possible for these things to be taken into account before there is a reprint. It may be that some of these points are obnoxious to the Ministry, but I hope that it is possible for the Department to have an open mind on the subject.
Then we have motorways. In the list of forbidden vehicles, I do not see learner drivers. I wonder whether there has been a change in the law, possibly a regulation which slipped through without our spotting it. I know, however, that on the motorways which I use one sees a tremendous number of cars with "L" plates. This is wrong. They should be stopped. In my opinion, there is not enough visible patrolling by the police in special cars. This practice should be stopped and completely curbed.
Lane discipline is a very grave matter. There is not adequate lane discipline, and the Ministry is right to do everything it can to enforce it. I wonder whether it was right suddenly to change the wording in Rule 112 to
After joining the motorway, stay in the inside lane".
In that context it is all right, but the inside lane of a motorway is surely the high-speed lane. The wording in the 1958–59 edition was "left-hand lane". Why have we suddenly caused ambiguity when the aim is to give clarity? I beg the Minister to consider a simple change of printing here, because I understand that the drafts that were discussed right up to the end had the wording "left-hand lane" or, on occasion, possibly "nearside lane", but "inside lane" simply creates ambiguity. I hope that this can be changed.
On Rule 117, the Minister has referred, rightly, to the heavy print: "Mirror—Signal—Manoeuvre". I beg him, in Rule 114—we certainly have no problems with formalities here—to put the last sentence into the heaviest print possible:
The outside"—
I would like that to be changed to "right-hand" or "offside"—
lane is for overtaking only. If you use it, move back into the middle lane and then into the left-hand lane as soon as you can, but without cutting in.
This is critical. Many of us who use motorways know of the modern road hog who sits in the fast lane travelling at 65 or 70 m.p.h. This surely should be an offence. I know of friends who have overtaken in their impatience. They were wrong. But to create impatience is also an offence. I hope that this can be included in the heaviest print possible.
Then we come to the horn and the headlight. Where we should all hang on the words of judges, I am a bit worried about what judges have been saying recently in courts of law. I stand for what is given in Rule 95:
The flashing of headlamps has the same meaning as sounding your horn—to let another road user know you are there.
That is right. If one drives in the middle of the night, the heavy lorry people have a wonderfully recherché system of informing one whether it is safe to pass, whether not to pass, or whether the lorry driver's girl friend lives in the house on the left—all sorts of extraordinary things. That is all right. Let them give the information, but let it be clear that the information can be received and is acted upon only on the responsibility of the driver receiving the information. On a personal view, I stand by paragraph 95 as it appears at present.
So much for the horn and headlamps. I think that what is said about the horn is correct, too.

Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend happy that the horn must not be used between 23.30 and 07.00 hours in any circumstances? I would have thought that it should particularly state that it can be used in case of emergency.

Mr. Webster: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is a little rigid. I am in some difficulty, in that I have said that the code is already too long and my hon. Friend is suggesting adding more words. But I accept what he says.
All the time we are driven back to a consideration of the dangers of too many words. Paragraph 124 says that we should not stop our car except when it breaks down. I asked an expert from one of our motoring organisations about this and he said, "The trouble is that the Ministry is seeking to go intercontinental and trying to fit in with the European Highway Code."
In that case, I must congratulate the Ministry on leaving out the European Highway Code rule that every motor vehicle must have a driver. I think that we are slipping too much into the Continental habit of putting in too many words, with the result that impact is lost, especially on the young learner.
Then we come to level crossings. We have read the findings of the court of


inquiry into the disaster at Hixon. It is a considerable time since the report of that inquiry was published, and I would have thought that this Highway Code should have been brought up to date and amended in the light of its findings, so that the flashing lights were cut out and a constant red light shown in their place as an indication that vehicles should stop. Let us be as simple as we can and leave out the level crossing sign depicting low-flying tintacks, which are horrible and frightening. Rule 145 contains advice which I fully commend, namely, that one should always give way to trains. I wonder whether it is necessary to put in such platitudinous expressions.
Now we come to the extra ninepenny-worth, about signs. I agree that signs should be grouped into circular—mandatory—and triangular—warning—sometimes with the base at the top, in which we conform with international practice. I wonder whether it would not be better to have them circular as well. Among the circular signs we have that depicting low-flying motor bicycles and motor vehicles. There is no red line across them, although in the case of other prohibitions there is a red diagonal line. Further, why have a sign for a "Play Street" when a simple "No Entry" sign would suffice?
A young member of my family said, "Why do we have signs for 'Stop Children' and 'Stop Police'"? Why should we not simply have the word "Stop"?

Mr. Bob Brown: A straightforward "No Entry" sign would debar residents who live in the play street. If any of the hon. Member's constituents live in play streets I do not think that they will support him in that argument.

Mr. Webster: I have never lived in a play street, although on occasions I have thought that I did. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. He interrupted me just when I had finished.
We all have our grumbles, and in opposition we have to put forward as many grumbles as we can. I hope that some of my grumbles will be noted. Perhaps something can be done to make the cods more concise. The Minister said that he has streamlined it, but it could be made much more clear and brief. That would be a much greater service.
I wish the Highway Code as much success as its predecessor has had, and I hope that it will have the maximum effect in saving life and preventing misery.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I welcome the new Highway Code. Although I could point to faults in it by going through it with a tooth-comb, but it must be said that it is high time that we had a new code giving a sense of purpose and direction to road users.
I want to draw special attention to Rule 132, which concerns cyclists. I have received a tremendous amount of correspondence from such organisations as the Huddersfield Star Wheelers, the president of which is a former national hill climbing champion, the National Cyclists' Association, and the Hoime Valley Wheelers, not to mention representations from individuals and from the Cycling Council of Great Britain.
Rule 132 states badly that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast and should ride in single file on busy or narrow roads. But who is to define what is a busy or narrow road? It is left wide open to interpretation. I accept that the Highway Code is not a law, but, when I have been sitting as a magistrate people have said to me that this or that person did not act in accordance with the code and notice has been taken of the fact. We are placing the onus of responsibility on a cyclist to decide whether a road is busy or narrow. That is quite wrong, in my opinion.
In the old Highway Code, cyclists were told to ride in single file when road or traffic conditions required it. That was straightforward and sensible, and, if anyone transgressed that rule, he was at fault. But it is no longer a matter for a cyclist's judgment when the code tells him that, when cycling, he must himself define what is a busy or narrow road.
I understand that the Cycling Council of Great Britain made representations to the Ministry some time ago, reflecting the feelings of a tremendous number of people. It would appear that they were virtually ignored. The Cycling Council represents such bodies as the Cycling Tourists' Council, the Road Time Trials Council and the British Cycling Federation. When it received the first draft


of the new Highway Code on 24th January, 1968, it was asked for its comments. As a consequence, special attention was drawn to the section headed "Extra Rules for Cyclists".
No reply was received, and the council wrote again to the Ministry on 19th July, and then again on 15th August. The Ministry remained silent. During the Summer Recess, presumably the Ministry was able to get down to the task of replying to letters dating back to January, and it wrote on 22nd August saying:
As far as possible, the amendments and suggestions have been included.
But it is clear that the council's representations have been ignored.
The following day, 23rd August, the council wrote to the Ministry asking for a further interview and for a copy of the new draft. Although an urgent answer was expected, no reply came from the Ministry until 7th October, when the council was informed that the Ministry wished to discuss the text "as it stands"—which meant that it was in print and that the council could either take it or leave it. A discussion took place on 28th October, by which time it was too late for anything to be done. This means that scanty attention was paid to the views of the organisation which represents many cyclists.
It is obvious, from the representations made to me—from all manner of cyclists; those who use their machines for enjoyment and pleasure and the more hardy riders who go in for time trials—that cyclists are being placed in an invidious position. Why cannot the Ministry retain the original words used in the former Highway Code—which said that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast if road conditions do not allow—instead of placing the onus on cyclists to decide whether or not a road is too busy or too narrow? This could mean that a policeman or interested party could claim that a road was too busy or too narrow, and the cyclist could be prosecuted.
In my youth I was interested in cycling and took part in time trial cycling, and when one considers that a country lane is safe, one is obviously tempted to ride alongside your cycling companion. For

the sake of the many people who cycle—who wish to get away from the fumes of traffic and the towns at weekends—I urge the Ministry to think again about this part of the code, which will penalise cyclists and treat them as a class apart. People cycle for enjoyment, sport, companionship and to get out into the country. Many cycling clubs, such as the C.T.C. and the Clarion, have "run leaders" who check the run and report which roads are too busy for two abreast cycling.
The Ministry should think again about Rule 132, which does not reflect the views of the Cycling Council of Great Britain and the tremendous number of cyclists in Britain.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) will forgive me if I do not follow him either in single file or abreast in talking of cyclists, but what he said, and his description of the representations that were made to the cycling bodies, is to my mind an indication of a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
It is not right for the Government to demand that the House should approve the Highway Code exactly as it stands, without any opportunity of amendment. It is all very well for us to say that we have taken note of the code, as the Motion asks us to do, but to say that we approve it, without an opportunity of disagreeing with any part or suggesting, without any hope of amendment, that something should be put in, is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
It would have been far better if the Government had laid the document in the form of a draft, asking us to take note of it, and, having done that, to have revised it in the light of the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members and, in due course, to have published it and, if need be, again brought it to the House for the simple formality of approval.
As things now stand, whatever we may now say will not have the slightest effect. The document is printed, and although no doubt the order has still to be given to roll off the millions of copies that will be on sale, nothing we can say tonight—unless the Parliamentary Secretary is


prepared to assure us otherwise—will have any effect on the document. All we can do is to express opinions and views, and those who, outside the House, have come to believe in recent years that the House is becoming a rubber stamp will have one more opportunity of thinking that this is so.
Within those limitations, I want to make one or two comments. I want to refer to one rule in the code, and to three matters that are not in it.
Rule 91 states:
Use dipped headlights at night in built-up areas unless the street lighting is so good that they are not needed.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there is a long history in this matter of using dipped headlights in urban areas at night. About three years there was the Birmingham experiment, and there have been a number of others. I was profoundly depressed on reading this wording, because I had hoped that now the code has come to be reprinted we would at least have a clear indication of what is the sensible rule, which is that one uses dipped headlights at night in all circumstances in all streets—even urban carriageways. I do not know why it is, but British motorists seem to have an impression, which does not exist anywhere else in the world that I have been able to find, that by using one's headlights at night one puts a drain on the battery, and it may run down. One does not need dipped headlights at night in well-lit streets so that one can see a driver: the important thing is that other people can see oneself.
Here, again, as in the case of the cyclists, the driver is asked to make a subjective decision. It is for him to say whether or not the street lighting is so good that dipped headlights are not needed. Every driver will come to a different opinion. I confess that I always drive with dipped headlights everywhere in urban areas, and I hope that I am not breaking the law in so doing.
There are three matters on which there are no rules at all, and I hope that, since it is now too late to do anything to this code, when it is next revised something will be done. The first matter is the use of flashing headlights on motorways. There is a slight reference to this in Rule 95. Any hon. Member who has driven on the motorway—as I suppose most of us

have—will be well acquainted with the man who comes along, usually far in excess of 70 m.p.h., drives up behind when one is driving well within what is called, in the vernacular, the "fast" lane, comes up within a few feet and flashes his headlamps as if to say, "Get out of my way. I want to pass."
If one is driving at 70 miles an hour one is almost irresistibly tempted to go on at that speed and let the man continue behind one. But it is dangerous, and I wish we had had some indication that this practice of driving close behind and flashing headlamps is very dangerous. A nervous driver could easily panic, and an accident could easily be caused.
There is another matter on which there is no rule. If one is in a vehicle travelling towards a "T" junction and wishes to stop and turn right, often another vehicle comes up on the left and also wishes to turn. Then there is some doubt about which vehicle has the right of way. Often the vehicle on the left pulls right across one's bows and one has difficulty in stopping. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about this.
Finally, there is the priority rule. For a long time I have been a convinced believer that we need a priority rule in this country either that we should give way to traffic on the right or from the left according to which decision is made. We have the priority rule at roundabouts where one gives way to traffic on the right, but an extraordinary situation exists in a number of places at different roundabouts where road markings do exactly the opposite.
If ever the Parliamentary Secretary is in the vicinity of Oxford, I hope that he will look at the southern and western by-passes, where he will find that the road markings at roundabouts require traffic coming from the right to stop. A driver approaching one of those roundabouts, and not knowing that there are road markings there, would automatically expect that traffic on the right would have priority, and then he would discover that the road markings say the opposite. As a consequence, there have been a number of accidents at these roundabouts, and I expect there have been a number at similar junctions in other parts of the country.
The Ministry must make up its mind on this issue and instruct county surveyors accordingly. When the code is again revised something should be done to make this matter clear beyond doubt.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Eric Heffer: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) about cyclists. I also underline a point made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). It is regrettable that tonight we are faced with the proposition of approving the code. We should discuss it and take note of it and not have to approve of it at this stage. It seems that everyone has been consulted except Members of Parliament until the matter has become a fait accompli. Even at this stage the Government should be prepared to take it back and to take note of the important points of criticism and the suggestions made in this debate.
Opening the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said that 60 independent bodies of road users had been consulted. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West has made the point that the cyclists' organisation has not been very much consulted. I have received a lengthy document from the national body of cyclists, but I was thinking of raising this matter on a local basis. I shall not recite the points made by my hon. Friend, but one important point should be brought out. When, on 28th October, Mr. W. H. Townsend and Mr. L. C. Warner, respectively chairman and secretary of the Cycling Council of Great Britain, attended at the Ministry, they saw an officer of the Ministry. Did my hon. Friends see the letters from the cyclists written as long ago as February, 1968? Or were they, too, seen by officers? Did my hon. Friends know that such representation was being made and that cyclists were making efforts to present their case?
It is not good enough to treat cyclists' organisations in this way. There are many thousands of cyclists. Cyclists are badly treated here. In France and elsewhere in Europe the cyclist is somebody of importance. The Europeans hold international events in cycling. But not here; in Britain the cyclist is somebody we do not care much about.
I quote a letter from the chairman of the East Liverpool Wheelers, who is also chairman of Liverpool District Council, Road Time Trials Council:
I was most disturbed to read that the new Highway Code now before Parliament contains the following recommendation among those directed especially to cyclists:
'Do not ride more than two abreast. Ride in single file on busy or narrow roads.'
It is the second part of this recommendation that I consider to be unfair and unjustified. There can be no really valid complaint against the first sentence. The wording in the current code should be retained which recommends that cyclists should 'Ride in single file when road and traffic conditions require it'.
I realise that whilst the Highway Code is not law it is the accepted standard by which authority judges road behaviour, and therefore may fix responsibility in the event of an accident.
If this new recommendation remains in the Highway Code it will seriously affect the activities of cyclists, particularly those who cycle for health and pleasure.
A tourist trial on a quiet country lane, or a minor road race, will encounter a motorist who feels it an intrusion on his picnic and who may complain to the police.
A cyclist touring with a friend in the quiet lanes will be intimidated by motorists who will try to run them off the road. This happens now. It will be worse with the Highway Code on their side.
I write as one who have been (and still am) an active cyclist for 37 years and also a motorist for the past 16 years. I consider what will be virtually a ban on two-abreast cycling completely unjustified, and I hope you will most strenuously oppose this section of this recommendation.
That is a very reasonable letter. I do not think my constituent can be accused of failing to understand the need for a new code and of not being reasonable about it.
I plead with my hon. Friend to take this section back. I know that it is now in print and the consequent difficulties. I know that tomorrow he wants to be able to pick up the telephone and say, "The code has gone through the House of Commons. You can go ahead with printing." However, the code should be taken back and these points considered. Changes should be made. We shall not force a vote on it tonight, but I appeal to my hon. Friend to look at it again. Many of my hon. Friends and I are so often put in the difficult position of having to come up against our own party and our own Government when it is not necessary, when we could have discussed the whole


matter beforehand, had another look at the question and then finalised it. I appeal to my hon. Friend to take the code away in this form, reconsider it, and bring it back to Parliament again.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am very sorry that the code is not subject to alteration. The proper course would have been to hear the views of Parliament first and then draw up the code. It is one of the functions of Parliament to give the maximum expression of opinion, and it is then for the Department to draw things up in the light of that opinion. This is even more desirable when it is a matter of a code rather than of law; when it is something which one ought to do, Parliament should have its say first. However, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) that that is not so, and all we can do is draw attention to various points, hoping that amendments will be made in due course.
I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, first, to paragraph 8 of the new code—
Try not to cross the road between, or in front of, parked vehicles, because drivers on the road may not be able to see you.
Why does it not say "or behind parked vehicles" as well? I feel particularly strongly about this because only this afternoon, but for the grace of God, I should have killed two children in Northamptonshire who, after getting off the school bus, ran from behind the bus straight in front of my car. Only after swerving, skidding and finishing up broadside on in the road was I able to miss them. I went to the house where they live and told their mother that I thought they should be better instructed, and I intend to write to the director of education and the police to draw their attention to the matter.
The code should say that people getting off buses or the like and passing behind should be particularly careful to look to the left to see whether anything is coming. No such advice is given in the new code. It does not even say that they should look when passing behind. The only reference is to "in front of" and "between". I regard that as a serious omission from Rule 8.
Now, Rule 138, about which there is a good deal of controversy and on which

horse owners and riders are not agreed among themselves. I myself do not agree with the view of the British Horse Society, that everything should go on the left-hand side of the road. It is impossible to be dogmatic about it. One has to go by the nature of the animal itself. For instance, some horses will not lead on both sides; they will lead only on the right-hand side, so that one must pass down the right-hand side of the road if one is to get them along at all.
I have had this sort of problem a good many times, having ridden horses all my life. With a horse of a certain temperament, it is much better to face the traffic on the right-hand side of the road than have it coming up behind. It is impossible to dogmatise about it.
I draw particular attention to the change which has been made from the old Highway Code, Rule 64, which read:
Go slowly when driving past animals, and give them plenty of room. Stop if necessary or if signalled to do so. Be prepared to meet led animals coming towards you on your side of the road, especially on a left-hand bend.
That is a very sensible rule, and it should have been in the present code. Much confusion will ensue upon the introduction of the new rule. It is a mistake to word it as it has been worded.
Those are the two points I particularly wished to make. Many other hon. Members want to speak, and so I shall content myself with them.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I share the concern of other hon. Members about the form of our debate. I do not think that it is the best way to decide a long, complicated document such as the new Highway Code, nor do I think that we should do much better to adopt the suggestion of hon. Members opposite that we should have a different type of debate in which we would make our comments and could amend the draft. This is a matter that could be referred to a Select Committee on transport, having the code discussed by Members and experts from outside, and then later having the draft returned for approval.
I have noted the comments of the R.A.C., sent to us today. I do not see that because this particular car has a flat tyre we should throw away the car. The


R.A.C. would not call itself the best supporter of the present or previous Ministers of Transport. Its document says:
There would seem to be no reason to suggest that the new edition should be rejected in order to secure alteration of any of its contents, particularly bearing in mind that this would delay provision of urgently required advice to the public concerning many new developments since that previous edition was issued.
The Ministry of Transport is as good as any Ministry—if not better—at noting comments made by Members in debates, replying to them, and, in many cases, acting on them.
I dubbed the 1961 version of the code the Wallasey version. The fashions on that cover show that the circle has gone all the way round from maxi skirts back to maxi skirts. The car at the bottom of the cover is a Ford Zodiac Mark I, and we have gone on to three different versions since then.
It has been fascinating tonight to see more than 50 Members here studiously reading the Highway Code. We should all be safer drivers for it. But it is not only the Highway Code or road safety that have attracted so many Members. It may be in part because that old banger, the Worcester Mark I, has been traded in in part exchange for the super version, the Finchley Mark IV.
As compared with the Wallasey 61 Code, we now have the Greenwich 68. Only the present Minister could produce a document with a device on the front cover urging the Conservatives to "keep left". That seems a particularly "Greenwich" touch.
The print is clearer than the old. It is larger, and the type is more readable. The message is clearer, and its illustrations are much better. It is an interesting booklet, if at times over-optimistic. Rule 33 says,
Never break the speed limits for the road…".
That is a doctrine of super-excellence. Some figures produced a little while ago showed that almost every driver broke the limits at some time, inadvertently or advertently. It may be that the proposals for revising the speed limits are long overdue, and perhaps some of the duty of deciding whether a road shall have a 30 or 40 m.p.h. limit should

be taken out of the jurisdiction of the local authority, because we all know how limits can vary between one stretch of road and the next, just as the colour of street lights can vary. The limits should be under the control of a regional authority giving a much broader view.
The code is informative; there is always something to learn. I always thought that a box junction sign meant quite clearly that one must keep off the box junction, unless one's exit was clear. But Rule 74 says:
But you may enter the junction when you want to turn right and are prevented from doing so only by oncoming traffic.
So it is possible to enter a box junction. There is a lot to learn. There is a great deal of defence to offer an enquiring policeman if one has read the code.
There are omissions, but that is not surprising in a booklet of this kind. I am concerned about Rules 70 to 78, dealing with road junctions and turning right. The procedure there seems to cover almost every situation except where one is approaching cross-roads, whether controlled by lights or not. One comes to the middle of the lane, wishing to turn right. The only advice given in Rule 78 is at the end:
…but do not cut the corner.
I have checked the situation during driving recently, and I have found that about one in ten drivers coming from the opposite direction and wishing to turn to their right almost inevitably cut in front of one instead of coming from offside to offside, which would be the correct procedure so that I may turn to the right, offside to offside. Some of the illustrations on page 19 could well have been used on the turning right procedure to show the correct and safe way when someone coming from the opposite direction also wants to turn right.
Rule 95 deals with flashing headlamps. I have always used my own simplified version of what I think has been the heavy transport code, although no one from heavy transport has ever tried to explain to the ordinary driver what that is. But I think that if I flash my headlamps it is an invitation to someone coming from opposite or passing on the offside to come on—that I would stand by while he came through—whereas, if I put on full beam I am, as it were,


putting a bar across the road and asking to go forward myself.
However, the recent judgment by Lord Justice Russell has made confusion even worse confounded. If my right hon. Friend and his predecessors going back a long way are right in their interpretation, then Lord Justice Russell is wrong, and it must be decided just what the law is. If the Ministers over a long period are right, then it seems that at least one person has been penalised who should not have been and that there should be some redress of that grievance.
I come now to the comments made by the cycling organisations, for which I have a great deal of sympathy and admiration. When I am trying to get up a one-in-four incline in bottom gear and see a cyclist with a twelve-speed gear box going past, nothing but admiration suffices. But I wish that long columns of cyclists would break up into smaller groups. It is one thing to pass two, four or even six cyclists together—they take up the length of a good size car—and go in ahead again but quite another to pass a very long column of cyclists.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend referring to the organised Cyclists' Union? If he is, it has been my experience as a car driver that the ordinary cyclists' organisations are the best disciplined cyclists in the country.

Mr. Ogden: Their discipline may well be excellent and their stamina is certainly formidable. But I would not have referred to long columns of cyclists had it not been my experience that, on occasion, there are long columns of cyclists. They may be rare but, on occasion, there are such long columns.

Mr. Lomas: I recall my hon. Friend's thoughts to my own remarks: How busy is busy? How narrow is narrow? How long is long?

Mr. Ogden: I am grateful. I believe that the longest vehicle is the R.A.F.'s "Queen Mary", as I understand it is called. I believe other types were used previously, including the "Princess Margaret". The length is about 33 ft. That is a long vehicle to overtake in any circumstances, but there are times when I have met on country roads columns of cyclists longer than that. They may be well organised and have their usual techniques but it is better if they do

break up. Perhaps I have been a little unfortunate in meeting them.
Quite apart from the breaking up of columns of cyclists into smaller groups and difficulties in overtaking them, I wanted to ask whether it will be easier for the leader of a group of cyclists to decide whether the group is riding on a busy or narrow road, as in the proposed code, or whether, as in the previous code, he should decide to ride in single file when road or traffic conditions require it. He has to make a judgment of the one thing or the other and, in the view of someone else, the judgment may be wrong. He is asked to decide whether road or traffic conditions require it, or whether the roads are busy or narrow, and it is a toss-up one way or the other. The letters of hon. Members on this subject seem to have been treated in a cavalier fashion and, if they had not been, perhaps this criticism could have been avoided.
I am pleased to see that on page 34 the flashing indicators, direction indicators, have now been given official recognition. I wonder what effect that will have on the driving test.
Page 37 stands out in awful majesty with the strange complexity of two different kinds of signs saying, "You must not". There is the red circle on the white ground with a turn right in black which has been crossed out with a red line. That is perfectly understandable and clearly says that the driver must not turn to the right, or must not turn to the left with a corresponding sign for that direction, or must not do a U-turn, with that sign. But what is meant by the sign which shows two cars, one in black and one in red? If there were two cars, one of which had been crossed out, that would be clear, as would a comparable sign showing a motor cyclist jumping over a car which would mean, "Beware of flying motor cyclists". But if the sign of a man on a white background with a line drawn through him means that pedestrians are prohibited, why should not that theme be carried through on the sign forbidding overtaking?
This is a serious book and a big improvement on the earlier document. It is a matter for serious study, and I commend it and those who have played their part in producing it.

11.22 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I want to deal entirely with the problem of horses, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) has saved me a good deal of what I intended to say. However, in all humility I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I share the view of the British Horse Society that in today's traffic conditions to have someone on foot leading a horse on the right-hand side of the road is out of date. Whether led or ridden, horses should be on the same side of the road, the correct side, and should get used to this and road users should get used to finding them on the correct side.
I appreciate the difficulty that some horses are trained to go on the wrong side, but in time it ought not to be impossible to get all horses trained to go on the correct side. Although that may be impossible with some horses now alive, nevertheless, it is something to aim at. That is the view of the British Horse Society and, I understand, the A.A. as well.
I understand that the British Horse Society was not consulted about the revision of the code before it was revised. If that is correct, it is to be regretted. Every interested organisation should have been asked for its views. Why has the code been revised when important organisations, representing sections of the community, have not been consulted?
With the increase in the popularity of riding, a little more attention should be paid to horses instead of merely covering them in Rule 49, by the term "animals". I know that the word includes cattle and sheep as well as horses, and that the rule warns drivers not to frighten animals, but the only animals likely to be frightened are horses.
After all, for cattle and sheep, one has almost to stop, particularly if one is going in the opposite direction. For horses, drivers do not stop. Speaking from my own experience, one sometimes gets "whizzed by" very close, even riding on a grass verge, by someone going at 60 miles an hour. The driver does not realise that if the horse gets scared, not necessarily by traffic, by a piece of paper, or cloth or a leaf, blown by the wind, and suddenly jumps sideways without any warning, the driver of the car will have

no chance of pulling up. I suggest that the words "especially horses" should be inserted after "animals" in at least one place in Rule 49.
I am not sure whether it is possible to change the code, but I suggest that if only a small number of copies have been printed, and there are millions yet to be printed, it should be possible to change it. It is only a question of resetting some type. What is the use of putting a document like this before the House if we cannot alter it in any way whatever? I hope that that point will be reconsidered.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I want to add my support to my hon. Friend who raised the case of the cyclists' organisations, the representatives of which visited the Ministry of Transport, but have had no reply to their communications. I want to put it on record that it is deplorable to treat members of responsible organisations like this. It is not good enough, and we Members of Parliament are not prepared to stand for it. We are prepared to take this matter further.
I also want to raise the case of the "No Parking" signs, and the double lines. In a number of towns, the police enforce this throughout the 24 hours, yet in others a strange driver may find cars parking after the evening mealtime right along the double lines after the shops have closed. In some towns one can do it and in others one risks being prosecuted. I should like my hon. Friend to look at this, and give a reply to the correspondence handed in to the officials of the Ministry of Transport by the cyclists' representatives.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: To be fair, the Ministry of Transport should be congratulated on producing a document that is better than the last. The language and the pictures are clearer. That does not mean to say that it is perfect by any means. I was very glad to hear that 60 organisations were consulted before this document was printed; but, most important of all, the 61st organisation, namely, the House of Commons, was not consulted before the code was finalised.
I notice from the Order Paper—Order No. 3 "Road Traffic "—that a Mr. Richard Marsh was to move this Order.


I was sorry that the Minister of Transport has not come here to do so. He has been dodging in and out, but he has not been listening to what we have been saying.

Mr. Ogden: I must place on record the fact that the Minister has been in the Chamber during the debate. He has been present for a considerable part of the debate, and he is here now, listening to what is being said.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: He has been dodging in and out, but has not really heard the debate. I hope that he will read it tomorrow. The main point about the code is that the most important person on the road, from the point of view of causing an accident, is the driver. Therefore, the drivers' section should have come first. In addition, the driver has to read 107 different rules. Knowing human nature he will get tired before he is half-way through.
I would suggest that the thing to do would be to pick out the half dozen, or seven most important rules for driving and highlight them at the beginning of the section of the road user on wheels. For instance, pick out "Drive at a safe speed in the circumstances", "Look out for pedestrian crossings and pedestrians on the road", "Do not drive too close to the vehicle in front", "Obey the 'Halt' signs and 'Give Way' notices", "Give a clear signal before turning right", "Look in the mirror before changing direction or speed or slowing down", "Keep out of trouble when you see it in front of you". Those are the rules which ought to have been emphasised in heavy print at the beginning. We all know that of the 16 million drivers only a handful will wade on through the 107 rules. A number of details in the code are not absolutely accurate, but I will not go into that aspect, because a number of my hon. Friends have mentioned it.
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to clarify Rule 95 about flashing headlights. As Lord Justice Russell said in Clark v. Winchurch, there are one or two well accepted conventions. One is that that when a man is putting his headlight up and flashing it means that he is coming right through. The other is that when he is waiting and gives a little flash it means that one can pass in front of him, turn right and so on.
The debate has shown that there are a large number of minor improvements that could have been made to the code, and had the House been consulted about it when it was in draft it would have been very much better.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I join my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have united in regretting the way in which the new code has come before us. The Minister in his message on page 2 says that the new code has been completely revised and rewritten It should not have been rewritten until the House of Commons had approved the re-writing.
A few points occur to me that have not yet been mentioned. First, the 1960 code advised pedestrians in shopping centres "always" to use zebra crossings. The word "always" does not appear in the new code. I wonder whether there is any significance in this. I should have thought that those who drive through shopping areas would wish to see stronger emphasis on pedestrians using zebra crossings and never passing over the road between them. In such areas there are plenty of pedestrian crossings.
Something else is missing that was in the 1960 code, and that is advice to pedestrians not to stand at a crossing if they are not proposing to go across the road. Many of us have hesitated and slowed down almost to a stop when we have seen a pedestrian standing by a crossing, only to find that he has been waiting for someone shopping on the other side of the road to come across later and join him. I am sorry that that line has been omitted.
There are a lot of points about the code that I support, and I hope that the Minister will accept them. I mention only a few because of the shortness of time. For instance, I should like there to be more warning of filter lights to the left at traffic crossings. Often one sees a car on the left come to a stop when the driver, who intends to go straight on, does not realise that there is a filter light to the left. Then people behind get angry and start hooting and everybody gets bad-tempered.
There should be a clearer definition of signs on the road as to whether one should turn to the left, go straight on or turn


to the right. One sees an arrow to the right and thinks that traffic going to the right must only go that side. One pulls up in the middle of the road with three or four cars in front, and then just before the lights change the car in front on the left moves and turns right. This causes further bad temper and further bad driving in the long run.
Another change relates to the parking of cars opposite or nearly opposite each other. Paragraph 97 of the code states that cars should not be parked opposite each other if this would narrow the road to less than the width of two vehicles. In the previous code the word "nearby" was included. It is important to emphasise that if cars are parked not merely opposite but near each other on opposite sides of the road there is just as much danger, and this should be prevented.
With regard to motorways, I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) about learner drivers. I am concerned about the instruction to pull into the left-hand lane when not overtaking. Because of the amount of traffic on motorways these days, one should not have to pull in to the left at speeds of 60–70 m.p.h. The middle lane is the furthest that one needs to pull in. If one is advised to pull into the left lane all the time, it will encourage swerving and bad driving.
I should like to have further comment or information from the Government concerning advanced warning signs such as are used on the Continent.
According to the previous Highway Code, drivers could be stopped only by policemen in uniform. According to the new code, they can be stopped by policemen who are not in uniform if certain offences are thought to have been committed. I should like to know the reason for this.
I should like to have seen something in the code about leaving cars in gear when parked on a hill, and whether both sidelights or only one need be used when cars are parked in certain areas. I hesitate to suggest that the code should be longer than it is, but the former code contained a section towards the end concerning the countryside code and first aid. Both of these have vanished, even though the new code is larger.
In spite of all I have said, I assure the House that my comments are expressed in the hope that the code will make the roads even safer.

11.36 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I should like from the back benches to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on being present for the whole of this debate on her new subject of transport. I have watched carefully because I thought that the Minister himself would be present to introduce something as important as the new Highway Code, which will go to almost every driver in the country. I intend no disrespect to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Even though the Minister did not introduce the code, he did not come into the debate until five minutes to eleven and went out two minutes later. He has now come in again because he realises, at last, how the House of Commons feels about this, not only on this side, but on all sides. He has, no doubt, come with the expectation that we would act as a rubber stamp for him.
I invite the Minister, here and now, to say whether he will withdraw the code to incorporate the amendments which hon. Members have suggested and then come back with it for approval. Will he do that? I have accused him of being arrogant before and he is being arrogant again. He must learn that he cannot treat the House of Commons in this way. Therefore, I shall continue with my speech because, even though the debate must close at midnight tonight, it can be continued on another day.
It is particularly important to have the new Highway Code at the present time when new signs have been introduced and are going up on the roads. There are certain parts of the code to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. I refer first to Rule 88. I was the sponsor of the Bill which became the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953, which made two rear lights and two reflectors compulsory on each vehicle. There is no doubt, as the figures prove, that this has greatly reduced accidents because, even if the lights fail, the reflectors help to show up the vehicle.
I know that many manufacturers incorporate the reflector in the rear lamp, but I believe that something should have


been said in Rule 88 that, in addition to ensuring that all the lamps work, the reflectors should be clean. No mention is made of reflectors.
Rule 93 deals with the dipping of headlamps. I do not want to go over what other hon. Members have said, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the instructions concerning dual carriageways. Sometimes headlamps are dipped and sometimes they are not. Nothing is clearly stated in the code about dual carriageways.
Rule 94, concerning fog, is of tremendous importance because, whenever there is a bad fog, there is a pile-up of vehicles and accidents. First, I should have thought that it was entitled to a headline in red—"Fog". When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was Minister of Transport I drafted—with his help—a Bill to make it compulsory to have lights on in fog or bad mist. At that time we could not persuade the Home Office that it would be wise. The Home Office thought that it would be difficult to enforce, so I had to drop the Bill.
I do not like the drawing illustrating a fog. I do not know whether the Minister has studied it, but as I see it a vehicle without lights is overtaking one with lights. It might have been better to have had the vehicle without lights nearer and the other one further away. If the Minister will look at the drawing he will see that the lights are so wide apart that they really represent sidelights and not headlights. There should have been four white dots, but the picture shows only two tiny ones.

Mr. Bob Brown: The hon. Member should realise that that is why we say,
Use your headlamps in daytime mist or fog…
because sidelights would not show up—and they would not show up on the illustration, either.

Sir H. Harrison: To most people the lights shown in the drawing would represent sidelights. Very often people look at illustrations without reading what they illustrate.
I now turn to the illustrations on pages 34 and 35. I have had a letter about them from a Mr. Russell—not a constituent but a person living in Southampton, who runs a driving school, with

registered driving instructors. In his letter—a copy of which has gone to the Ministry—he says that he is very unhappy with the second illustration on page 34, showing the nearside indicator flashing, and the words,
I intend to move in to the left or turn left or stop on the left.
This should be taken with the third illustration on page 35, the slowing down signal. I know that this is a hand signal which is used if the electrical indicators are not working, but the caption says,
I intend to slow down or stop. This signal should be used when slowing down or stopping at zebra crossings".
This does not mean that the driver was deviating out of his line or moving to the left, and Mr. Russell rightly says that there is no problem in the practical, common sense application of these two signals, but he goes on to say that they conflict completely with the Ministry of Transport Approved Driving School instructions on previous occasions.
As the rule for the test stands at the moment literally anyone who uses the left-hand indicator as indicated in the new Highway Code could easily fail the M.O.T. test. There have been many examples of this.
Could this point be looked at, and all approved driving instructors be given fresh guides on the matter? We do not want one instruction for the test and another for use later.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The other day on the radio, in the motoring half-hour, this very point was raised, and the Ministry official on the programme said that what was shown in this book was very bad practice, and was against the Highway Code.

Sir H. Harrison: That reinforces my plea and shows how important it is for hon. Members to speak in this debate and express their views. The important thing is to get the Highway Code—when amended—known and practised by established drivers. Experienced drivers read the Highway Code much less frequently than new drivers. I suppose that it would be too much to ask the Minister to make it compulsory for a copy to be carried in every car. Next Friday, we are to debate the Second Reading of a Bill about vehicle registrations. Perhaps this is a point which could be considered then.
I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said. I believe that this new Highway Code should be withdrawn, so that the Minister can look into the points which have been made in the debate and make the necessary alterations. I urge that special attention should be given to that section of it dealing with fog conditions.

11.45 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: We cannot alter the code tonight, and I deplore that fact, like others of my hon. Friends. But, leaving that on one side, how are we to get its contents over to our 14 million motorists? It is regrettable that the price has been increased by 150 per cent., because it will be more difficult to sell, and it will not be bought automatically by all motorists. Too many will say, "I know it all", when in fact there is much new material in it. The motoring organisations will do all that they can by means of their own free distributions of literature, but that cannot be enough. The Government's propaganda machine has been a formidable and powerful one over the past two years. Now the Ministry must switch it on full blast to publicise the code to 14 million motorists.
I should like to see the free distribution of it widened to include teen-agers who are about to leave school. In addition, it should be taught to them in their last two terms at school. After all, most of them will be learning to drive soon afterwards and, just as younger children are taught kerb drill, teen-agers about to leave school should be taught the full code. Perhaps the Minister could consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education with this in view. I should like to suggest that we should have national quiz competitions on it on television, so as to get it known and talked about. It cannot be given too much publicity.
How many copies of the 6 million needed for next year have been printed so far? In the next edition, I hope that it will be amended, with special attention being given to signs on automatic half-barrier level crossings. There have been 18 near-misses on the Leominster crossing, and there is a great deal of ignorance about it. Greater publicity is required to get it over to people, so that they

know and understand the new procedure. It has been recommended that the present sign be scrapped, and we cannot afford to wait another five years with an out-of-date sign shown in the code.
Turning to Rules 138 and 139, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) when he says that they could be confusing to a motorist. Surely it would be far better for motorists to get used to expecting to find horses and ponies always going on the same side of the road—the left-hand side.
To sum up, this is a good code. But, no matter how good, it is of no use unless it is read and understood by every one of our 14 million motorists. A full-scale campaign must be started to publicise it as widely as possible.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I want to comment first on the criticism about the presentation of the Highway Code. This procedure has been followed for 38 years—

An Hon. Member: It is high time that it was changed, then.

Mr. Brown: I agree, but—

Mr. Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not certain that the Parliamentary Secretary sought the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. On a Motion of this kind, he does not need the leave of the House.

Mr. Brown: I concede freely that it is time for a change, but, if hon. Gentlemen opposite had listened to my opening remarks, they would have heard me make special reference to the need for revision of the code. I particularly stressed that my right hon. Friend would be interested to hear the comments of hon. Members, since we recognise the need for a change in future presentation. However, it is not fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise us when we are following the procedure which has been adopted since the first Highway Code was published.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: In any revision, could the code be altered so that we are clear about the meaning of the word "road"? The code refers


to roads, highways, carriageways and motorways. We know what a motorway is. What is the difference between a road and a highway, a highway and a carriageway and a road and a carriageway?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend had been in his place at the beginning of the debate he would be aware of the various definitions. I do not have time now to answer his question.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman was complaining about our having complained about the procedure which has been followed. If he will refer to the 1959 debate, when the last code was approved, he will see that the then Government provided a whole day for its discussion. Had I had the opportunity, I would have suggested earlier that that would have been a better procedure on this occasion, rather than the two hours which the Government have provided at this hour of the night.

Mr. Brown: That is a debatable point which can be kept in mind for future Highway Code debates.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) questioned the rôle of the Department in connection with signs for moving to the left. The publication of the new code will make it necessary for the present instructions which are given to approved instructors to be changed, but this cannot be done until the House approves the code tonight.
Several hon. Members referred to the price of the code and compared its cost of 1s. 3d. with that of the former code, which was 6d. There is ample justification for the increase. [Interruption.] The new code combines the traffic signs booklet and the Highway Code, making it two publications in one. There have been large increases in the cost of printing, distribution and so on since 1959, when the last code was produced. For example, at 1959 prices, the cost of printing 1 million copies each of the code and the traffic signs booklet would be just over £10,000. At 1968 prices it would be £17,500, an increase of more than 70 per cent. I need say no more on the question of cost.
The possibility of a Highway Code for children was mentioned. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf produced a special code for deaf children

some years ago. This has been brought up to date and, because of its quality, it is felt that it would be ideal for all children, up to the age when they are better able to understand the adult Highway Code.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and others asked many questions which had nothing to do with the code but which were more concerned with the technique of driving. The driving manual, which the Department proposes to publish in the second half of next year and which will, I hope, be a best seller, will deal at length with matters such as driving technique and will fully answer many of the points raised in this connection.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) referred to his experiences with school buses. These vehicles are covered by Rule 40. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) mentioned the depressing habit of some drivers on motorways of flashing their headlights at motorists ahead of them to indicate that though travelling at the speed limit, they want to overtake and exceed it. I could not agree more—it really is a desperate practice, and should cease. Nevertheless, the code stresses that the separation distance is a very important matter. This aspect of the subject of flashing headlamps is a valid point about which we might well think in the future.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about a priority ruling. Again, the question of who has the prior right at a "T" junction is more a matter of driving technique, and will be mentioned in more detail in the driving manual that we intend to publish next year.
The hon. Member for Henley criticised the presentation of the document, and suggested that we should have laid a draft in the first place. I again stress that it is not clear whether the present powers would allow us to do this. But his suggestion is very valuable, and one to which we shall give consideration when next presenting the code.
I am sorry to have had to leave to the last the subject of cyclists, which has raised the greatest interest in the debate. Here, I must apologise to other hon. Members whose many and varied points I must clearly leave unanswered tonight, but the subject of the cyclist must be dealt with before this debate ends. The


Cycling Council of Great Britain, which represents some 22,000 members, has objected to the new rule and has asked for it to be changed. The Council maintains that the general rule to ride in single file on busy and narrow roads is unnecessary and unfair, but it stretches a point when it suggests that it will completely undermine cycling as a recreation.
It is true that the Department has had more than one communication from the Cycling Council, but the Department's main consideration in the preparation of this new Rule 132 has clearly been the safety of the cyclist. It is worth stating that in 1959 some 11,300 cyclists were killed or seriously injured, and last year there were some 6,700. The number of cyclists is declining steadily each year and this partly accounts for the fewer casualties, but even though there are fewer casualties on the road the cyclist casualty rate has steadily increased, and so, in fact, has the involvement of cyclists in injury accidents.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the Affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).

In 1959 the casualty rate for cyclists was 616 per 100 million vehicle miles. In 1967 it was 771 per 100 million vehicle miles. In 1959, the number of cyclists involved in injury accidents was 696 per 100 million vehicle miles, and the corresponding figure in 1967 was 827. Those figures suffice to show that the new rule for cyclists is necessary, but if in the light of experience it proves to be otherwise, when the more ready bringing up to date of the code which I have mentioned earlier comes about we shall have another look at this aspect.

Mr. Graham Page: rose—

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 14.

Division No. 7.]
AYES
[12 m.


Alldritt, Walter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hon. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Bob (Newcastle, W.)
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Notts, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roebuck, Roy


Concannon, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hon. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. G. P. (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Or. John (Falm'th)
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (H'dd'rsfi'ld, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Waddington, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Webster, David


Buchanan-Smith, A. (Angus, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Currie, G. B. H.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Hector Monro.

It being after two hours after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (PUBLICATION)

So much of the Lords Message [14th November] as relates to the appointment of a Committee to consider and report whether any and, if so, what changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Harper.]

Lords message considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee of Three Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider and report whether any and, if so, what changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament:
That Mr. Charles Pannell, Sir Peter Rawlinson and Mr. S. C. Silkin be Members of the Committee:
That leave be given to the Committee to hear parties interested by themselves, their counsel, or agents, so far as the Committee think fit:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:
That two be the Quorum.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.4 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: Without wishing to oppose the Motion in any way, may I seek elucidation from whoever is dealing with the Motion and in particular ask the one question, whether the Committee will specifically have in mind the Ninth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services and the Report of Sub-Committee on Broadcasting contained therein, in which we made very clearly the point that, if the House were subsequently to agree to sound broadcasting of its proceedings, the matter of the law relating to Parliamentary Privilege would have to be examined. I ask this because the Motion as tabled refers simply to "publication of the proceedings ". All I want to do is seek an assurance that publication includes a reference to the possibility of sound broadcasting.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I think it useful that there should be some explanation of this Motion.

Originally, when the Select Committee on Publications discussed the question of broadcasting our proceedings, it was pointed out that the B.B.C. is at present more restricted than any organ of the Press in relation to defamation. This is so whether we broadcast the proceedings of the House or people on radio or television merely repeat in their own voices the words which we say here, as is done now.
The matter was then referred to the Select Committee on the Reform of the Law of Privilege, which in turn referred it to the Sub-Committee on Broadcasting, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles is the Chairman. All these Committees felt, and the last Sub-Committee mentioned specifically recommended, that a Joint Committee should be set up to consider the issue, since another place is interested in it, too.
I, therefore, welcome the Motion now before us, and I hope that the Joint Committee will report fairly soon, as the B.B.C., irrespective of the broadcasting of our proceedings, is in the anomalous position to which I have referred.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: For how long has the B.B.C. been in this position, and what difficulties has it encountered?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot join in a general debate, tempting though the question is which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has raised. Only questions for elucidation are in order at this point.

Mr. English: It would be difficult to elucidate that point, since the Press was in a difficult position before the 1952 Defamation Act, which, unfortunately, did not apply to broadcasting. I can only say that, in my view, the Motion should be welcomed. I hope that the Committee will report as speedily as possible upon that issue and any other issue which may come within its terms of reference. The particular issue to which I have referred is at present before a Committee of the House and will in due course, I hope, come before the House as a whole. I hope that we shall have an early report so that we may at least put the B.B.C. in the same position as the Press, and, second, clear the way, if the


House so desires, for the broadcasting of our proceedings.

12.13 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Both my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) have raised important points. I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomed the Motion. I am sure that the three distinguished Parliamentarians who are to be members of the Committee will take careful note of what has been said. I shall do all I can to make sure that there is a speedy report.

Question put and agreed to.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

AGRICULTURE (CALF EXPORTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity to bring before the House the question of the export of live calves. The problem has been highlighted for several weeks in the Press, particularly in the Daily Mail. I have here copies of what has been said, for example,
The great Calf Mystery—Why don't they tell us the truth?
or, in another example,
Calf Exports stepped up".
I am grateful to Mr. John Winter and the Daily Mail for pointing out the facts and bringing the matter to a head. The problem, while not very great at present is growing, to the detriment of home-produced beef. The National Plan stated the need for expansion of beef production, and perhaps it was one of the most important parts of the little Neddy on agriculture that we should increase our beef production.
In his statement on agricultural objectives on 12th November, the Minister said

that there would be an expansion of beef, and added that the Government would like to see a retention of suitable calves for beef. That is very important. Why, then, has the Minister not acted before on this problem? Is there no concern in the Ministry?
I am not attacking the principle of exporting. I believe that old cows, old sows, and second- and third-rate calves are suitable for export, but why allow our best beef raw material to be exported? To me, the principle is wrong. I am not arguing about the numbers tonight, or whether certain figures are right or wrong. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not bog us down with a vast number of figures. I am not interested in them, for it is the principle that matters; it is the policy that is at fault.
I fully understand the feeling among farmers. Good luck to them, for they need everything they can get at present. I declare an interest, because my own calves have been making far more money since we have had this little export boom. I do not blame farmers for wanting it to continue. They are glad to clutch at any straw at present, but for the Government not to look at the problem seriously and with a view to the long term is stupid, and not very responsible.
If there is a plan for the expansion of beef, which the Minister cannot deny, it is wrong to sell our best calves abroad. Dairy farmers should have a profitable income without having to rely on the export of calves which are really needed for raw material for the beef industry.
We are experiencing in the South-West an increase in prices for calves. Buyers are in the market. The calves are going to Belgium and France, and I believe that there have been considerable inquiries from Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Holland and other countries. This has meant that calf prices have risen by at least £5 to £8 a head. I repeat that these are our best calves. I should not mind so much if they were the second- or third-rate calves.
Although I am not concerned with the numbers, it is interesting to see the figures that have been put around. The Daily Mail talked about 29,000 in August, September and October. It is true that there appears to be a discrepancy in Belgium,


and that the figures may be exaggerated, but probably at least 1,500 calves a week are being exported. This could create a shortage of home-produced beef in the next 12 to 18 months.
The Ministry know that this is going on. We learnt in a reply to a Question about the number and capacity of approved calf lairages for the export of calves at 24th August, 1968, and changes in the figures since that date, that two lairages, with accommodation for 248 calves, had been approved by 24th August, and that approvals are now operative for 12 lairages, with accommodation for 2,864. That shows that there has been a considerable increase in the lairage accommodation, and that the Ministry knows about it.
I have had a letter from someone in the Rye area. It says:
One of our local dealers alone has exported 5,049 since September 10th and up to last Friday. So I cannot think the figures given out or suggested either by the Ministry or N.F. U.H.Q. are correct.
It would be interesting to know what the figures are, although my criticisms tonight are not based on the numbers.
What is the Minister going to do about this? Does he deny these facts? I believe that it may be too late at present to undo some of the damage that has been done, but the future remains and it is this with which I am concerned. Is the Minister happy about conditions on the Continent where these calves are going—conditions which would be outlawed in this country? There seems to be one law for the farmer in this country and another for the Continental farmer. An unfair competition in veal production is the result.
This is a serious point. We have our standards, our codes of conduct, and rightly so. Certainly the Ministry will in the near future enforce the rule that calves should have iron in their rations. I agree with these things. But these calves will now be exported and returned to us in some cases having lived on an iron deficiency diet. Where is the logic? Where is the fairness to British farmers?
I go so far as to say that white veal may be obtained in future only from imported meat from our exported calves. What a situation! How ridiculous can we get? I do not understand what is happening to the R.S.P.C.A. in this

respect—why it has not made far stronger protests to the Ministry on this point of one standard for us and a different one for those on the Continent.
I hope that the Minister is carrying out a thorough investigation into illicit exports. All the evidence points this way. In the early stages there was a very strong demand in the markets and yet the official number of exports was low. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should have accurate figures and the closest watch kept on correct standards and humane methods of travel. Can we have an assurance on this? Many organisations are watching the situation and we want those assurances tonight.
But to me the most important part of this question is the future. This is of great concern to me. Buyers from abroad have sampled our wares. They know where to come to get some good calves. There have been many inquiries from other countries. With a rising standard of living abroad, they will require more beef, hence more calves from us. This is virtually the only place where they can obtain this raw material. The potential demand is enormous. I have had assurances from some people that the market will grow if we allow it.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt say that the numbers involved are very small and that I worry unnecessarily. But I believe that the numbers will swell and that we shall be in a position of shortage of top beef calves for our own beef. I believe that the Minister must take the long-term view. We are drowning, in a sense, in milk and the justification of this tremendous amount of milk is that we shall have calves from the dairy herd and that they will be reared for beef. I believe that to export our best raw material is nonsense.
I shall not say much more, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) wishes to speak. He has supported me in this, and I am sure that we shall be interested to hear what he has to say. The Ministry must answer the two major questions of principle which I have asked. In the long term, is it right to export our raw materials? Secondly, is it fair for these calves to be exported and reared in


conditions which we would not tolerate in this country?
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not try to cover up all this—I know that he will not—by a lot of figures. We want answers to the questions of principle.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The hon. Gentleman has already made three requests for figures. I hope that he will not object to my giving them when I reply.

Mr. Mills: Not at all, but I hope that the speech will not be one long stream of figures. I am worried about the policy and the principles.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on promoting the debate on a matter which is causing the gravest concern not only in the agricultural community, but among others, and it is right that we should have had the opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House. I shall make only three simple and straightforward points, because I want to give the Parliamentary Secretary as much time as possible in which to answer the debate.
First, we must make serious charges against the Minister for the conduct of the last two and a half months. I believe that there has been bumbling over the figures which the Ministry has been using. From various Questions which I have asked, we know that the information about and the statistics of calf exports are grossly inadequate. At the same time as the Minister himself has had to revise his figures, we have had other figures from other authorities, and we are left wondering what the true position is. This is something which must be tightened up.
Secondly, there has been a serious lack of foresight by Ministers. When the decision was made on welfare grounds to reduce the weight of calves which could be exported, there was a complete failure to take into account the implications of this decision economically and in other directions.
Thirdly, following on from this, there has been indecision and inaction by the Ministry in the face of rising public concern. Arising out of that indecision and inaction, I have two specific questions which have already been put by my hon. Friend, but which I reiterate. First, there is the economic question. How can the Minister expect farmers to treat seriously his policy of expanding beef production when his own actions do not match his words? Secondly, on the welfare aspect, how can the Minister hope to get the acceptance of codes of practice when already, by condoning this trade, he is condoning one code of practice for home producers and another for overseas? I support my hon. Friend in the view that this is not a question of degree. It is a matter of principle and I hope that we shall get an answer on principle. This whole sorry tale does no credit to the Ministers responsible for our agricultural Departments.

12.29 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): As usual, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has used extravagant language. When he does not have much of a case, his language gets more extravagant, as I shall prove to him. He spoke of the Ministry bumbling figures, which is quite untrue, as I hope to prove. That is why I interjected when the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was asking me not to give too many figures, having posed a fair number of questions which compelled figures to be given in reply. One honest statement which the hon. Gentleman made was to say that he was selling calves—I do not know whether he was exporting or merely selling them—at fairly high prices.

Mr. Peter Mills: I thought it was fair to say that I was declaring an interest in that I had been selling calves, and they had made considerably more money lately, for which I was very pleased, from a farmer's point of view.

Mr. Hoy: Exactly, and this is one of the difficulties. I was reading today about the export of South Devons, and the first consignment will bring in £635,000. I thought it was very good business, and I am certain that the hon.


Member who represents that part of the country will not be taking exception to it.
The hon. Member for Torrington said that all evidence points to illicit exports. If that is so, he will have no difficulty in giving me the evidence, and I shall look forward to receiving it. When he shows it to me I will get my Department to take action on it.
This subject is an interesting and important one. The Government are paying close attention to it, but at the moment it does not give cause for alarm. In answer to a Question from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, my right hon. Friend gave some figures. The up-to-date figure, to 9th November, is 13,087. In the same period last year the total was 7,777. Hon. Members will know that figures of calf exports are collected by my Department's port veterinary officers, but have only been collected since 1967.
I am aware of what the hon. Member for Torrington said, that some doubt has been cast upon them in the Press. This doubt seems to have arisen because of confusion between the number of applications for export licences and the number of animals actually exported. This is particularly so in respect of the Belgian trade, where confusion seems to have arisen between the number of import licences issued by the Belgian authorities and the actual number of calves sent to Belgium. I am satisfied that the figures given to the House throughout—and I ask hon. Members to note that—were the right ones.
The current figure is 13,000, for this year, compared with 8,000 last year, when trade was interrupted by the foot-and-mouth epidemic. Trade this year cannot be regarded in any sense as unusual. Its significance in relation to future beef production is comparatively small. There are about 4 million calves born in the United Kingdom annually, and of that number about 500,000 are slaughtered shortly after birth, because it is not considered worthwhile, for a variety of reasons, to rear them. The number slaughtered can vary by as much as 100,000 from year to year, according to the state of the market. In 1967 more than 600,000 calves were slaughtered. This year the figure looks like being nearer 500,000. From the provisional

figures it appears that from July to September this year 50,000 fewer calves were slaughtered, compared with the same months of last year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These figures of calf slaughtering are very significant and relevant. Have they not also to be related to the number of calves retained? That is the important thing. If the hon. Gentleman would give information about that, it would help.

Mr. Hoy: I think that the number of calves retained is greater, but if there had been 50,000 fewer slaughtered, I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be in the right direction. I shall give further figures later.
It is against this background that the 5,000 additional calves exported must be considered. At the moment this is a small trade, and its effect on the beef herd and beef production in this country cannot be regarded as significant. We produce about 900,000 tons of beef at home. The 5,000 extra calves exported would at most represent just over 1,000 tons.
These are the figures. In view of the seriousness of the charges made, I think the House will agree that it is right that I should put the matter in its proper perspective.
It may be said—the hon. Gentleman said so—that the calves exported are of high quality. They certainly represent only a very small proportion of the high quality calves that are available.
As far as prices are concerned, the part played by exports has been severely exaggerated. Although some people have benefited, as the hon. Gentleman says he has, throughout the year calf prices have in general been higher than they were in 1967. In July this year—before the export trade had started—Friesian bull calves were selling on average for over £4 a head more than in July last year. In September and October the average weekly price of Friesian bull calves varied a few shillings on either side of £19, between £3 10s. and £5 higher than in 1967.
I am obviously not claiming that exports had no effect on prices. They have been one factor in the market, and it is difficult to evaluate the influence of the various factors. In some markets in some weeks their effect may have been


significant. But the main cause of higher prices has been not export demand but the keen demand for beef animals from our own producers. This keen demand no doubt reflects the added incentives given to beef production after this year's Annual Review as well as the very firm tone of the beef market.
I think I have said enough to show that this trade is not at the moment of a size to affect our beef production or our beef production prospects in a significant way or our plans for expansion over the next four years. Purchases of calves for export have so far not become a significant factor in the United Kingdom market taken as a whole, and there is no good reason on economic grounds to interfere with the trade at its present level. Naturally, the Government are keeping a close watch on the situation and fully recognise that there could be risks if this trade reached very large proportions.
The hon. Member for Torrington has suggested that some element of unfair competition is involved here. We have on more than one occasion assured the House that our proposals for livestock welfare in general are not likely to place the British producer at a disadvantage compared with foreign competitors. But white veal is a special case, and we propose to discuss imports of this commodity with the overseas Government concerned at the appropriate time. We have still to pass our own code of practice, and we think that, when we have done that, it will be a more likely situation in which to do it.
Circumstances could arise where Government intervention might well become necessary. We are ready to consider such action and the machinery exists which would enable us to act promptly. It is wrong and misleading to exaggerate a trade which, up to now, has been of no more than modest proportions.
However, I assure the House that we are aware of the implications of any sharp rise and shall certainly watch progress carefully, because I want to assure the hon. Member for Torrington that we would be just as concerned as he is if we thought that this trade would continue to increase. I hope that in the next few weeks we might see, not increasing, but decreasing figures. Quite obviously, however, whether they go one way or the other, we must keep a careful watch on them to ensure that what the hon. Member fears does not happen.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for introducing the debate. At least, it has given us an opportunity of explaining the real figures and, at the same time, of assuring the House that if action has to be taken, it can be taken. I assure the hon. Member that the machinery is such that we can take action very quickly, unlike being tied up on certain other problems and certain other commodities. Action can be taken, and I assure the hon. Member that we will not——

Mr. Mills: I am still a little concerned about the problem of imports of veal with iron-deficient diets. The Minister is saying that this matter will be watched and dealt with. Otherwise, there will certainly be unfairness to our own people.

Mr. Hoy: Yes; I have given the hon. Member that assurance. If there was any danger of that happening, of course we would want to deal with it, and we would also want at the same time to protect our own farmers from having to compete against unfair competition. Therefore, I give the hon. Member that assurance. Indeed, if we saw an upward trend or a move in a direction which we did not like, I assure the hon. Member that we would take steps to put the matter right.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.